REVINCE ON QUORA: WHICH OF THE US GLOBAL INTERVENTIONS WERE PURELY WELL-MOTIVATED?
 
Which of the USA's global interventions were purely well-motivated?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
Answered 17m ago
 
Ok, let’s look at the motivations broken down into regions.
 
Middle East and the rest of the Muslim world
 
All US-waged wars in the Middle East have been motivated mostly not to defend the US but to please two allies that the US Establishment deems important, namely, Saudi Arabia and Israel. In Saudi’s case the motivation is to prop up the US dollar. (Although in the case of Afghanistan, part of the motivation has been to harass and weaken Russia).
 
This is explained on Quora here: https://www.quora.com/What-were-...
 
In Israel’s case, the motivation is threefold:

 
1 - The holocaust. Americans are compassionate to Jews because of their suffering in Hitler's Germany.
 
2 - AIPAC, the Israeli-American lobby, which controls elections. As you know, many politicians, mostly Democrats, have accused Russia of interfering with the US elections. But there is very little evidence to accuse Russia of this, and besides, US candidates and their partisans in media spend far more effort and money campaigning for their candidates of choice than any foreign government possibly could. On the other hand, Israel openly and blatantly interferes in the US elections and no one complains. How do they do that? AIPAC does this in two ways: they give generous donations to candidates who declare themselves pro-Israel and discredit candidates who refuse to pledge support to Israel or who show sympathy for Palestine. This blatant meddling gives Israel almost complete control of US foreign policy and much of its domestic policy. Saudi Arabia also helps Israel to control the US because that country has a petrodollar agreement with America that obliges it to comply with the wishes of the Saudi dictatorship. Given that both countries hate and fear Iran, they have had an enormous influence on Trump, who seems to be preparing for a conflict with Iran. See this documentary for further details: https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/...

 
3. "Christian" Zionism. Non-Americans find it odd that there may be a religious sect that exerts such a huge influence on US foreign policy, but the truth is that about 70-80% of American evangelicals believe that their country should support Israel, and should not care that Israel commits crimes because many of them believe that the Israeli government is guided by God -- even when they violate the Ten Commandments. However, their belief in Israel is actually not aligned with the Bible. They claim that the resurrected Israel prophesied in Ezekiel 37 is the modern secular state of Israel. However, none of them seem to pay attention to verse 24 of that chapter, which says that resurrected Israel will be "obedient to God’s decrees." Unfortunately for them, a survey conducted by WIN/Gallup shows that 65% of Israelis have no religion whatsoever. Furthermore, the IDF's repeated killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza, for example, is contrary to the decree in the book of Leviticus (19:9-18) in the Jewish Torah, which enjoins the Hebrews to love their neighbours as themselves. For these and other reasons, Ezeiel 37 cannot be referring to the Israel of today.
 
The other location of US-waged wars is outside the Middle East, ie, Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, such as Afghanistan
 
In the case of these wars, the reasons are more complex, but generally, the motivation is to preserve US hegemony. The pretext given for wars during the Cold War, eg, for the disastrously failed war in Vietnam, was the desire to stop the spread of communism. But if this had been a sincere desire, then the attempt shortly after that war to grant communist China Most Favoured Nation Status would not have happened. During the debate in Congress leading up to the granting of this trade status, some members actually stated that free trade with China could offer the benefit of driving a wedge between China and Russia. Since this attempt to institute free trade with China rules out the possibility that the US Establishment wanted to “stop the spread of communism,” this lays bare the true motivation, and that is, the desire to keep Russia under control. Indeed the concept of encircling and hemming in Russia became part of US policy that outlasted the Soviet Union.
 
Finally, the question mentions not only wars but interventions in general. The most representative case of US non-military intervention was the Maidan coup. There was no stated motivation because the fact that the US State Department, and US NGOs like NED, USAID and a George Soros foundation were involved in wresting control of the Ukrainian government out of the hands of the legitimately and democratically elected president and placing Ukraine in the Western sphere of influence was not stressed in the Western press. The coup was sold as a spontaneous grassroots protest but was clearly instigated and led by the US. It was therefore illegal meddling. The motive was to remove a Russian ally from the Russian sphere of influence. well motivated? The UN has determined that about 3000 civilians have been massacred so far in Donbass by the US-backed regime and the IMF has found that Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe. Further, to add insult to injury, the US now shows little to no interest in the welfare of the Ukrainian people. Their “aid” is limited to lethal arms that are used to massacre more Ukrainians.
Finally, we would be remiss to omit a commentary on the NATO assault on Sebia. This received detailed commentary at Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-hasn-t...

Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora.
 
Q: WHY ARE THE RUSSIANS SO AFRAID OF THE LATEST CRUISE MISSILE TEST AT SAN NICOLAS ISLAND?
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-the-Russians-so-afraid-of-the-latest-cruise-missile-test-at-San-Nicolas-Island/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
First, let’s look at a response from an American who says he is a defence contractor. I have added notes in brackets as usual for my NSS readers (not in Quora though). First, let me say that the most egregious error that all US agents involved in defence make is the steadfast contention that Russia is the enemy. While Russia is indeed opposed to the US Establishment elites, it is far from being the enemy of humankind. That distinction goes to the Washington elites. Russia has so far prevented 3 major armed conflicts and thereby saved countless lives. It prevented armed attack against the Syrian government, the Venezuelan people and most recently, against the Iranian people. It has also held a belligerent Israel in check at various times by chasing its fighter jets out of Syria.
 
Matt Hastings
 
Matt Hastings, Been a defense contractor for over a decade now
 
Because it changes everything.
 
Before, there were limited approaches that a surface launched [he apparently means ship-launched] cruise missile could take, as they all had to come from the sea, which allowed for a more effective and concentrated defense against them. Air launched cruise missiles still had a decent warning time because you probably knew the aircraft were coming.
 
Not anymore
 
The game has changed. Places like Iran now have much more airspace to cover against cruise missiles. [that depends on whether the US can find a country near Iran from which to launch its missiles. Qatar and Turkey are both allies of Iran. Saudi would probably fear retaliation if it allowed the US to launch from there. Iraq is already poised to oust the US forces] That means they are going to defend by spreading their defenses thin, spending a lot of money and buy a lot more of them. [Not necessarily. Russia has full coverage radar and also knows where the launch pads are (Poland and Romania at this point in time) and will have a good idea of the potential trajectories of the missiles. It makes no sense to say that they can detect incoming planes but not incoming missiles. Further, Russia has already warned that it will be pre-targeting the known NATO missile sites. Since the calculations were already done, eliminating the sites would be a cake walk. Further, the Russians would be striking with hypersonic missiles like the Kinzhal, which no known system can intercept. The destruction of the targets would be a foregone conclusion. Although the missiles may already have departed by the time of this counter-strike, the knowledge that it is inevitable would be a very effective deterrent to the leaders of those countries, who do not want an attack on their soil. Besides, the S-500 is designed to take out incoming missiles. But Matt seems to be forgetting that, based on the new Russian defence policy, any attack on Russia invites a nuclear war and the risk of annihilating humanity. So what’s the point?]
 
The problem is that the only defenses with the kind of reaction time needed are inherently short ranged and kinda expensive in relation to how much airspace they can cover. [Not if the S-500 is used (which the author seems not to be aware of). It has a longer range and its radar can detect the incoming missile at the time of launch. These are things that every defence contractor must be aware of. But judging by this author’s hubris, his main thrust is not to marshal facts and present cogent arguments but rather to convince the Western reader that all is well when it is not. And the purpose of this propaganda is to lull the reader into a sense of trust toward his government and its arms suppliers so that the latter can continue to sell arms that the US actually does not need.]
 
It’s also cost the Russians more money because they had to expedite the development of their new S-350 system to compensate for it. [the S-350 is already tested and in production. Even assuming its development had to be expedited, this would not have cost the Russians significantly more than gradual development according to the planned schedule. Unlike the US, Russia has a modest debt, as I discussed here, and can afford to spend on its arms.]
 
The time it will take for the US to field the missile
 
The Russians are actually frightened [I read the Russian language news outlets daily and have never detected any fear from anything I have read. If feel-good propaganda is the goal, then Americans may be put to ease by this post, but propaganda is not supposed to be part of an arms contractor’s job] because we don’t actually have to develop the missile, just a launcher. [This idea of just changing the launchers is exactly that adopted by the Russians. Whose fault is it if the US refuses to read the Russian press?  Knowing the “enemy” is supposed to be one of the Pentagon’s jobs] And that’s a lot easier to do, especially if we just have that launcher take all standard Mk41 containers.
 
Which brings us to:
 
What the US fielding such a system would mean
 
The US currently has a massive investment in networked targeting infrastructure. This means that the radar doesn’t have to be right there. [Russia has had radar networking for years. It developed full-coverage radar in 2017. It also uses radar networking in Syria to help keep the pesky Israeli missiles away]
 
But a launcher that can take any Mk41 containers just made the entire calculus of battle change. Need defense against small Ships, planes and possibly taking out a radar station? Load SM-6’s. [The Russians have had this kind of versatile system for some time now with their Russian-Indian joint development the Brahmos missile: http://www.brahmos.com/content.php?id=10&sid=10]
 
Think you may have to defend against ballistic missiles? You can load SM-3’s. [Forget defences against ballistic missiles. The Russian Avangard ballistic missile flies at 20 mach and no air defences can intercept it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv_xibIAyZc. Would a defence contractor not know this?]
 
Short to medium range anti air? Load 4-packs of ESSM’s.
 
Worried about enemy subs too close to the coast? Load VLASROC’s
 
And this doesn’t even begin to address the road and air mobile tomahawk launcher pose.
 
A lot of nations’ entire defense against the US plans just went down the crapper, especially Russia’s and China’s. A full scale war where ground forces can easily take out an air defense radar without risking a plane in the effort severely complicate strategy and neutralizes any advantage that systems like the S-400 may give [this writer apparently has never heard of the revolutionary S-500 system, which has a longer range than the S-400 and can reach outer space. The fact that a defence contractor would fail to mention this is indicative of the level of the Pentagon’s knowledge of its so-called “enemy’s” defences. As for radar, Russia claims it can detect so-called “stealth” aircraft with is longer wavelength radar. China has recently shown at an air show its new quantum radar, which makes “stealth” aircraft completely visible and can even show an image of the aircraft to the operator]. The Pantsyir already has a battered rep with the beating that the Israeli’s gave to their reputation, and this isn’t going to help things [the Pantsir was not defeated and arms buyers know this. It was swarmed in Syria and its ordnance became depleted. Ran out of ammo, that’s all. All air defences can be successfully swarmed if enough incoming missiles enter their zone of detection at the same time. This has happened to the much touted Iron Dome system in Israel as well. The highly efficient Pantsir is still the only air defence system anywhere that uses not only small inexpensive missiles but also cannon fire to stop incoming missiles. It has many times more staying power than any Western system. These are some of the reasons Russia is selling different Pantsir versions, for example, to UAE ] This means increase immunity for helos like the AH-64 Apache to operate as well.
 
Russia’s biggest military export right now is actually SAM systems, if they are seen as no longer an effective deterrent of any kind, business and cash inflow will plummet [this article on Russian military exports doesn’t mention SAMs, although he may mean the S-400 air defences. Since Russia also sells a dazzling array of aircraft including the Su-35, which rivals the US F-35 and is reputed to be able to defeat that latter in a dog fight due to better manoeuvrability, as well as helicopters, subs, engines, ships, it would be hard to imagine that the bulk of its sales, at least in dollar amounts, would be SAMs. But even so, the missiles of the S-400 will never be obsolete. Long and intermediate range missiles can be taken out by the S-400 just as easily as any other missile or aircraft, so it is hard to understand how this expert opinion is relevant.]
 
Further destroying the Russian economy [you honestly believe that Russia’s economy could be destroyed by deploying new weapons? And what earthly good would it do the US to destroy Russia’s economy? Wouldn’t it be more productive for the US to focus on building its own economy with its staggering debt? Is this the mentality of US defence contractors? Do they really want to see innocent people suffer? Starving people has nothing to do with defence] and weakening the resolve of certain element of China, especially since land based tomahawks sold to Taiwan would really make main land China’s policies change, as they would be unable to defend against that threat when combined with the other capabilities of the Mk41 launcher. [Just as this expert says that the US could take out Russian radar and air defences with their missiles, China could do likewise to Taiwanese systems – not that this would be desirable. I would hope that a peaceful resolution could be reached between the two Chinas. This is not a military problem but to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail]
 
Trump just kicked Putin and Russia down the stairs and took their lunch money, because it’s cheaper to be nice to and appease the US than buying the defense equipment necessary to defend against this new threat. [I have to wonder if this author knows much about Russian and Chinese diplomacy. The US is the only nation of the three that is genuinely rude, never nice, toward rival powers!] China now has real issues about their security and the US has to spend very little money to make it all happen. [Russia intends to use the same strategy as the US, ie, converting ship-based missiles to land-based. Does this author really think Russia is too stupid to think of this obvious solution? Putin has already said he will not be suckered into an expensive arms race, but he has also made it clear that, in response to the US pull-out from the INF, Russia will focus on re-tooling the existing longer-range missiles like the Kalibr and Iskander, originally designed for launch on board ships, so that they can be launched from the ground. Further, Putin revealed to the world the new hypersonic Kinzhal missile, which has already been tested and for which no analogue exists anywhere in the world. The benefit of this missile is that it travels so fast that no known system can intercept it. Further, it is intended to be launched from an aircraft and this means it can reach the US mainland. The US has so far not developed anything like it, although work on such a design has long been underway.]
 
Checkmate.
 
[It might be checkmate if it were not for the fact that Russia and the US have nuclear parity. So if any of the touted US weapons really turned out to be superior – for which there is no indication at this point, just hubris on the part of the US Establishment – then the US would be suicidal to use them against Russia or China because these countries each have enough nukes to destroy the US several times over and they have undetectable arms delivery methods. For example, if the US did manage to knock out Russian air defences and invade the country, Russian subs lurking in all the oceans could still deliver their nuclear weapons throughout the US, destroying all domestic US military bases, and could trigger the so-called Doomsday weapon – a nuclear-armed torpedo – to cause horrific tsunamis on both coasts, wiping out most of the infrastructure in those areas. Also completely ignored in this post was Russia’s near-miraculous electronic warfare systems, which can block the on board communications and missile guidance electronics and obstruct the GPS signals used by enemy pilots. To be fair, if I were a propagandist for US defence, I would not mention these things either]
 
I just now found and translated an article from RIA Novosti that helps further answer this question.
See if you can detect any of the fear (mentioned in the question) about the new US missile designs in this Russian article. I would also like to point out that Russia has warned countries like Poland and Romania that if the new previously banned missiles are deployed there, their launching sites will automatically become targets. This warning is expected to have political repercussions that may eventually deter the politicians of these countries from allowing their deployment. After all, it is clear that the US wants to use Europe as a buffer, hiding behind the Europeans to keep itself safe. This missile deployment could cause a rift between the countries and the US. Putin has said that he will target not only the countries in which the missiles are deployed but also those that pressured them to deploy. That would be the US and its NATO allies.
 
Expert tells how Russia can respond to US development of new missiles
 
Aug 23, 2019
 
MOSCOW, Aug 23 - RIA News. A possible response to US trials of new missiles previously banned by the INF Treaty will be the creation of a ground version of the Kalibr and the strengthening of the aerospace defense system, chief editor of the magazine Natsionalnaya Oborona Igor Korotchenko told RIA Novosti on Friday.
 
Russian President Vladimir Putin issued instructions to analyse the level of threats and prepare a symmetrical response to the US actions.
 
"The first measure is the adaptation and development of weapons systems that can neutralize Russia's threats from the deployment of US medium-range ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles in the Asian and European theatre. Such work can be implemented in a short time, in particular by creating a ground-based version of Kalibr cruise missiles,“ said Korotchenko.
 
Putin ordered starting work on the "landing" of the Kalibr and the creation of a medium-range hypersonic ground-based missile back in February, but, as Moscow states, Russia will deploy these systems only in response to similar US steps.
 
Korotchenko also mentioned as possible retaliatory measures of Moscow, the development and adoption by the Russian Armed Forces of a new medium-range mobile ground-based missile complex, as well as the accelerated implementation of projects such as the Poseidon strategic underwater drones and the Burevestnik, a nuclear-powered cruise missile with with an unlimited range.
 
In addition, Russia will need to quickly strengthen its aerospace defences based on modern systems, in particular the S-400 and S-500, as well as the Buk-M3 and Tor-M2 air defense systems, the expert believes.
 
 The Tor-M2, as a means of intercepting the outer periphery with an almost absolute probability of destroying targets, should provide cover for the most important groups of Russian troops, as well as the highest-priority facilities of the governmental, military and administrative command and control system. A combination of such measures will allow us to confidently get through this period and are guaranteed to ensure the security of Russia, "said Korotchenko.
 
The Pentagon recently announced the testing of a land-based cruise missile in non-nuclear armaments, forbidden until now by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) of 1987. The treaty banning missiles in the range of 500 to 5.5 thousand kilometres between Russia and the United States became ineffective on August 2.
 
Later, the Pentagon confirmed to RIA Novosti that a modification of the Tomahawk cruise missile, designed to destroy ground targets, has been tested.
 
The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed out that during the test, the Mk-41 launcher was used (the kind deployed at the American military base in Romania). Moscow regarded this as "a reconfirmation that these installations are designed to launch not only interceptor missiles, but also cruise missiles."
 
The Pentagon, in turn, stated that the Mk-41 was actually used for the tests, but with a different configuration from the one in Romania.

by Vince Dhimos
 
The latest news report on the Israeli strikes on Iraq is that Baghdad believes the drone strikes on its territory were launched by Israel from territory controlled by US-backed SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces), which received funding for the strikes from Saudi Arabia. As of this writing, I was unable to find any mention of this in the Western press, which is not surprising because, if true, it is a huge embarrassment to the US and could lead to the Iraqi parliament demanding full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. And since the stated purpose of the US presence is to defend Iraqi “security,” by allowing fighters on territory supposedly controlled by the US to launch an assault on state-authorized Iraqi fighters from there, it loses its pretext for being in the country. The usual Israeli excuse is repeated again, namely, that the strikes targeted Iranian forces. According to Middle East Eye:
 
“Since July, a series of explosions have hit bases, weapons depots and a convoy belonging to the Hashd al-Shaabi (PMF), a grouping of mostly Shia militias with close ties to Iran.”
 
Further:
 
“A powerful bloc in Iraq's parliament called earlier Monday for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
 
The Fatah Coalition said it holds the United States fully responsible for the alleged Israeli aggression, "which we consider to be a declaration of war on Iraq and its people." The coalition is a parliament bloc representing Iran-backed paramilitary militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces.”
 
Here is why this report, if true, or if never credibly denied, is damaging to the US: The PMF is by no means an exclusively Iranian group, as Israel and the US would have us believe. Its members include Iraqi Shiites and even some Iraqi Sunnis, as well as Christians and Yazidis. Thus, and for the reasons given below, the US-Israel alliance can no longer claim the strike targeted Iranians. Besides, as a Shiite-majority nation, the Iraq people themselves have an intimate religious and cultural bond with Iran and the attempts by Israel and the US to socially engineer Iraq to separate it from Iran are hopelessly naive and will fail, as will the attempts to separate Iran/Hezbollah from Syria and Lebanon.
 
The whole narrative that Israel (with US blessing) has been attacking only or mostly Iranians/Hezbollah in its numerous routine attacks in Syria and now Iraq – which attacks have now been expanded to Lebanon and Iraq – is, under the present circumstances, problematic at best because
 
1)  The Iranians and Hezbollah are fighting terrorists alongside Syrians and Iraqis and the members of the PMU are inseparable from the entire Shiite Crescent (Iran, Iraq, Alawite-dominated Syria and Lebanon, thanks to Shiite Hezbollah’s strong presence), which is a faith-based brotherhood (it is completely irrelevant that the Iranians are not Arabs).
 
2) The US/Israel-promoted narrative that the Iranian (para)military and Hezbollah are terrorists is untenable since both are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria and Iraq and, needless to say, none of them have joined these terrorist groups – which are, in fact, sponsored and financed by US-ally Saudi and, clandestinely, by the US (this report details why this is so).
 
3) The US/Israel-promoted narrative that the whole of the Iranian defence forces are a terrorist organization is a futile attempt to convince the world that Iran is an outlaw nation. Europe wants very much to trade with Iran and generally does not believe this narrative. In fact, it wants the JCPOA – unilaterally trashed by Trump — restored. Yet Brexit UK, eager to please Donald Trump, went ahead and illegally seized the Iranian tanker Grace I based on this completely false US-generated narrative that Iran is a terrorist state and, in addition, on the equally false proposition that sending oil to Syria is a violation of an international law – a “law” not approved by the UN but unilaterally cut from whole cloth by the US (and rubber-stamped by the EU), which is, in fact itself a rogue regime that routinely flouts international law. So no, let’s admit that Iran did not violate any legitimate international law even if it had intended to sell oil to Syria. After all, the UN never declared that Syria is to be sanctioned in any way. (Let’s also admit, BTW, that the Brexit movement was not motivated by a quest for “freedom” for the UK. It made the UK an even more obsequious vassal of the US and NATO).
 
4) The group that was attacked by Israel, ie, Hashd al-Shaabi (People's Mobilization Forces, PMF) was formed by the Iraqi government on 15 June 2014 and, in 2016, a law passed in the Iraqi parliament incorporated the PMU into the country's armed forces. Thus, officially, the PMU cannot be considered an Iranian or Hezbollah organization (despite the presence of any Iranians in its composition) and the strike against it puts the US in a position such that it must either censure Israel – pretending it did not authorize the strike – or stick to the absurd line that the PMU is in fact an Iranian force. This contention will of course be rejected by the Iraqi parliament. Thus, because of this reckless move on Israel’s part, the US armed forces are a step closer to being ousted from Iraq.
 
Let us recall that, in a recent phone call, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri asked Sergey Lavrov for help with mediation with Israel. But not all the details of that phone call were made public. A recent event suggests that there may have been mention of military help. That event was the expulsion, by Russian Su-35s, of Israeli jets entering Syrian air space for a second attack in Syria last Saturday night. This bold intervention by the Russians thwarted the second attack on Syria and is a strong signal to Israel that further incursions into neighbours’ airspace may no longer be tolerated.
 
Since Israeli incursions into Syria are typically made by the supposedly “invisible” F-35s, this aircraft may therefore not really be invisible to Russian radar. The Russians have already said their radar can “see” the F-35. This ability of the Russian forces to track the Israeli Fu-35 would be an embarrassment to both Israel and the US and an effective advert for the Russian Su-35 and Russian radar systems. Demand for the overpriced F-35 is waning, with Turkey expressing interest in the Russian counterpart.
 
On June 25, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev laid a bombshell on John Bolton and Benjamin Netanyahu in their 3-way joint session, saying: “Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner...”
 
This effectively squelched the idea of an Israeli and/or US strike on Iran and at that point, I think Israel felt it had to make a strong statement, aimed mostly at voters. The strike on Iran/Hezbollah in three different countries (4 if you include Gaza) was such a statement.
 
But like all Israeli military “statements” of this kind, it is fraught with risk and will have consequences. One of Israel’s problems is that it has relied heavily on the US all its national life and the US had always saved it from the consequences of its own reckless actions. I had discussed with you the statement of a ranking Israeli officer who, in an op-ed, admitted that Israel wanted to drag the US into a hot war with Iran.
 
The Israeli article of faith that the US would always save Israel from itself was a fatal miscalculation, not because the US has relinquished its desire to aid Israel but because it has lost the war of diplomacy to Russia. Israel has relied heavily on the US to bail it out of scrapes and many Israeli officials still cling to the old notion that it can rely on the US to fight its fights for it. They ignore to their peril the leading role of Russia in the Middle East and America’s loss of trust in the Middle East (as evidenced by the latest Arab Youth Poll).
 
We need to now shift our focus to Lebanon, where the government has already tried to establish military ties with Russia but has been thwarted by the US, as reported by the Arabic-language site Arabic Post (our translation to be posted soon). Russia may soon attain that coveted game-changing goal.

AOur thanks to Vesti News for this video report on the war in Syria.
 
You will recall that Trump started tweeting in 2018 that he had defeated ISIS. This was misleading and false in two ways. He was suggesting that ISIS was the only terrorist organization in Syria that threatened peace. In fact, al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda offshoot, later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir as-Sham, was and is doing the same damage and killing innocents just as effectively and prolifically as ISIS, and further, ISIS itself was and is nowhere near defeated.
 
Briefly a tenuous peace was maintained in Idlib Province, where Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iran had negotiated a de-escalation zone. But the terrorists began violating the zone almost immediately.
 
Perhaps the biggest assemblage of terrorists in the world, of all stripes and from numerous countries, is now caught in a cauldron in Idlib Province in Syria. See our translation below from RIA Novosti. These terrorists are essentially doomed. They have no way out of the cauldron and those who continue fighting are being destroyed.
 
So why are we telling you this? Because the news on this latest stage of the war is not fully covered in the West. After all, it is embarrassing since Western msm have been leading their readers to think the Syrian conflict was over. In fact, the reports are mostly biased to lead their audiences to think the Syrians and Russians are nothing but bloodthirsty animals who love to destroy schools and hospitals. However, if you watch the above-linked video and read the subtitles, you will see that in Idlib, schools have been commandeered by terrorists and used as bases. So yes, some of them have been destroyed since they were no longer schools at all.
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION

Idlib cauldron. What will give Assad’s army control over Khan Sheikhun?
 
Aug 22, 2019
 
MOSCOW, Aug 22 - RIA Novosti, Andrey Kots. The Syrian Arab Army, with the support of Russian aviation, surrounded the city of Khan Sheikhoun, the largest stronghold of militants in the south of Idlib province. This is the result of a large-scale military operation by Damascus in response to a violation of the ceasefire. The Syrian army took control of the Damascus-Aleppo highway, cutting off terrorists from supplies. RIA Novosti reports on what happened and how events will develop further.
 
Broken Truce
 
A ceasefire in the province of Idlib was announced on August 2. However, the militants of the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham [a rebranding of Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra] coalition ignored this. By August 4, the Russian military recorded 20 shelling settlements in the Idlib de-escalation zone. In response, on August 5, the command of the Syrian Armed Forces resumed operations against the terrorists.
 
On August 7, the Syrian army regained control of the city of Arbain in the northwest bordering the Idlib province of Hama and eliminated 45 militants. Major General Alexei Bakin, head of the Russian Center for the Reconciliation of the warring parties in Syria, noted a sharp aggravation in the Idlib de-escalation zone, reporting 42 shellings per day by illegal armed groups. The next day, two Syrian troops were killed and 13 were injured from gunfire.
 
On August 9, terrorists launched a counterattack in Idlib province, attacking positions of government forces in the area of ​​Abu Dali. Ten Syrian soldiers were killed, and more than 20 people were injured. After retreating, the militants fired on the outskirts of the city with multiple launch rocket systems. On August 10, the Syrian army liberated several villages from the militants on the border of the provinces of Hama and Idlib, knocking out Jabhat-an-Nusra terrorists. The military encircled Al-Hubayt, which occupies a strategic position in the south of Idlib.
 
Major General Bakin reported that the militants had continued to build up forces in the southern part of the Idlib de-escalation zone. The terrorists deployed about 470 fighters and military equipment there. The al-Watan newspaper reported on August 11 that the Syrian army had liberated the city of al-Hubayt, inflicting significant damage to Jabhat al-Nusra militants in terms of equipment and manpower. The remnants of the terrorists retreated to Khan Sheikhoun. In two days of fighting, 23 Syrian troops were killed.
 
 
 
Turkish factor
 
SAA continued its movement towards Khan Sheikhun. On August 14, the army took control of the villages of Kafr Ain and Aas, as well as Tell Aas [Aas hill] in the south of Idlib province east of the city of al-Hubayt. That day, the militants managed to bring down a Syrian Air Force fighter-bomber in Idlib. The pilot catapulted and was captured. On August 16, the army liberated four more villages in the south of the province.
 
Soon, the SAA completed the encirclement of Khan Sheikhun. On August 19, a convoy of Turkish armoured vehicles crossed the Syrian border and advanced towards the besieged city – probably to help Ankara-controlled groups in the province. A military convoy attacked the Syrian Air Force. The column stopped.
 
“Turkey has its own interests in the Syrian conflict, in particular in the Idlib zone,” Boris Dolgov, senior researcher at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, explained to RIA Novosti. “Turkey is still not fully complying with the Sochi memorandum. The Turks continue to operate in "their own interests in the Idlib zone. And their interests are the preservation of armed Islamist groups, which Ankara considers moderate and which rely on the support of Turkey."
 
The successes of the Syrian Arab army have already elicited a nervous reaction of the United States. Morgan Ortagus, a State Department spokeswoman, said Tuesday that Bashar al-Assad’s government and its allies should return to a ceasefire in Idlib.
 
"Today's unacceptable air strike on the Turkish convoy followed ongoing brutal attacks on civilians, humanitarian workers and infrastructure. [the Turks entered Syria illegally, in fact.  As for attacks on civilians, the worst such attack was conducted in the bombing of Raqqa by the US, so the US authorities are just being their hypocritical selves] We condemn this violence and it must be stopped," Ortagus emphasized. [Statements like this are displays of US impotence. They can do nothing]
 
Victory coming soon?
 
The capture of Khan Sheikhun will seriously strengthen the position of the Syrian Arab army in the south of Idlib province. This will allow the militants to be locked in a cauldron in the neighbouring settlements of Latamna, Murek and Kafr Zeit and will create the prerequisites for a further offensive into the last governorate in Syria, which remains under the control of terrorists.
 
“Today, Syria is building its future with hope, but terrorist organizations that are banned in many countries of the world continue not only to exist there, but also to resist,” Andrei Koshkin, head of the Plekhanov Russian Political Science and Sociology department, said on the air of Sputnik radio. Government forces of the SAR [Syrian Arab Republic] are quite successfully clearing the territory, and by now they are blocking many groups, cutting off their supply routes for ammunition, depriving them of means of subsistence. I think this is an omen of victory for the time when government troops can completely clear the territory of Syria from terrorists."
 
It is worth noting that in the province of Idlib, many immigrants from the former republics of the USSR and some Russian regions are fighting on the side of the militants. To prevent them from returning home after the victory of the SAA is an important task for Russia.
 
President Vladimir Putin, in anticipation of a meeting with his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron, called the possibility of their transfer to other regions of the world a great danger.

​END TRANSLATION

Vince Dhimos answered a question at Quora. Bracketed items were added after posting at Quora.
 
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-Iran-and-Russia-formed-a-military-alliance/answer/Vince-Dhimos
 
Question: What would happen if Iran and Russia formed a military alliance?
 
Vince Dhimos, Editor-in-Chief at New Silk Strategies (2016-present)
 
What do you mean “would happen”?
 
The alliance is already in place.
 
Title: Asia Times | Attack on Iran would be an attack on Russia | Article
 
QUOTE:
 
“What Russian National Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said at the recent, historic trilateral alongside White House national security adviser John Bolton and Israeli National Security Council Adviser Meir Ben-Shabbat in Jerusalem should be unmistakable:
 
“Iran has always been and remains our ally and partner, with which we are consistently developing relations both on a bilateral basis and within multilateral formats.” [Vince’s highlighting]
 
This lays to rest endless, baseless speculation that Moscow is “betraying” Tehran on multiple fronts, from the all-out economic war unleashed by the Donald Trump administration to the resolution of the Syrian tragedy.”

[Shortly after Russia entered the fray in Syria, US and aligned media started alleging that Putin was about to betray Assad. The reasons for this presumption were silly – the fact that there had been no meetings between the 2 leaders for some time, Putin’s posture during one of their meetings, etc. It was nothing but the usual Western lies. Then Putin was supposedly about to betray Rouhani. No solid evidence, just wishful thinking on the part of the mentally unbalanced fiction writers in US media. And are you ready for this? Russia and Iran are planning joint military drills in various waterways, including the Srait of Hormuz, as reported in the US publication The National Interest and Newsweek! Still reading only US and European media? I have friends who tell me they think they are getting balanced news because they read both Democrat and Republican newspapers. OMG! Sorry, folks, both parties constitute the War Party. Did you really think you could achieve balance by absorbing pro-war news from the Democrats and pro-war news from the Republicans? At least supplement your news feeds with non-US-aligned media like Southfront, Asia Times, Fars News, Tehran Times, SANA, Al-Masdar, Russian sites like RT and Sputnik and others, including, of course, New Silk Strategies. Southfront and Al-Masdar will keep you up to date on the progress made by the Russians and Syrians in the fight against ISIS and the many rebrandings of al-Qaeda, ie, the terrorists that Trump had bragged many months ago that he had defeated all by himself – Vince.] 

The following is our translation of an article from riafan.ru with commentary by Vince Dhimos.
 
The US is trying to have it both ways and, as a result, is getting nothing. The Turks originally asked to purchase the Patriot missile system from the US but the US refused to sell it to them. But now that the Turks have signed on for the Russian S-400, the US is trying to force the Turks to buy the now-outdated system but Turkey has said no thanks. The same may happen with India.
 
How’s this for the art of the deal?
 
BEGIN TRANSLATION

Kedmi explains how Russian weapons make the US screw up
 
Moscow, July 16. The situation concerning the supply of Russian anti-aircraft missile systems S-400 to Turkey has demonstrated that the United States is continuing to attack the world arms market, says Israeli expert Yakov Kedmi.
 
Kedmi noted that the US is continuing to repeat its mistakes in the arms export segment. Moreover, these errors have become systematic.
 
The expert recalled the actions of Washington with respect to India and Egypt. The American side imposed an embargo on arms sales under various pretexts, and now, realizing its loss, is trying to get back in the game. Apparently, the US is concerned that Russia has become a leader in the Indian and Egyptian markets for military-industrial products.
 
The same situation is observed with Turkey, to which the Americans first refused to supply the Patriot anti-missile system. Ankara has found a way out of this situation and now Turkey is receiving the S-400 from Russia. According to political scientist Kedmi, Russian armaments are inducing the United States to make mistakes.
 
“Two years after the refusal, the Americans returned and offered a Patriot at the price of the S-400. The Turks said they wouldn’t buy this old stuff. And now the United States is trying to blame its stupidity on Russia,” Kedmi told Ekonomika Segodnya (Economy Today).
 
The political analyst believes that only Russia and the United States can satisfy Turkey’s demand, which is aimed at creating a reliable air defence system according to modern standards. Moreover, if the S-400 were, for example, in France, Paris would not hesitate to begin selling the complexes to Ankara, disregarding the position of Washington, the newspaper noted.
 
“Now it (the USA) does not want to sell the F-35 to Turkey - and they shouldn’t! There is an aircraft like it, the Su-57. The Turks have already said: we’ll buy it. Do not ask the Americans to refrain from selling something else to the Turks. They themselves do stupid things more successfully than any of their opponents could think of doing,” added Kedmi.
 
In July, it became known that Russia began to supply Turkey with components for the S-400. We emphasize that the Turkish authorities, despite pressure from Washington, have repeatedly stated that they will not give up the Russian complexes.
 
END TRANSLATION

Our thanks to Movie Clips for the above-linked video of Major Kong riding the bomb to the ground.


Below is our translation of an article from planet-today.ru with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.

You know, I can’t think of anything more downright stupid than antagonizing the two military, diplomatic and economic powers Russia and China even as their star rises and the West’s sets. You do realize -- do you not? -- that two separate US “experts,” writing for Bloomberg, both recommended preparing for war with not only one of these powers but both!
 
Further, according to The Nation, the Pentagon is also bracing for a conflict that would pit the US against China and Russia. Its brainless calculations completely ignore the possibility of what such a conflict would inevitably turn into – ie, a nuclear war that would kill most of us. So far, none of the big boys has stumbled across that notion of just stopping the provocation. 
 
The EU can no longer keep itself together, as none less than EU admirer George Soros himself admitted, and the US, well, it still labours under that unwieldy national debt that was $22 trillion when I started writing this sentence but God knows what astronomical heights it will have reached before I finish this article. And this deeply indebted US just can’t keep its hands off the war button. It’s an addiction. And many Americans believe God will protect it from its stupidity because that is in fact its only hope. The image of Major Kong in the film "Dr. Strangelove" comes to mind (click on link above).
 
I keep getting this sneaking feeling that the guys in Washington and Wall Street who hold the strings of power are actually intentionally doing everything in their power to bring down the American house of cards. Yet, how could that be?
 
And somehow I just can’t get Paul’s words out of my head:
 
 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
 
I will always believe that Satan has his headquarters in Washington, DC. What other explanation can there be?


BEGIN TRANSLATION
 
The Russia-China alliance: made in the West
June 14, 2019
 
The Western press is horrified: China is moving away from the US toward Russia. The leaders of the United States and the EU are so accustomed to singing their own praises and poking at Russia, that they did not immediately notice how Beijing was offended by them. The process of "divorcing" China from the United States accelerated in 2014 - just when the Crimean Curtain fell between Moscow and the Western world.
 
The rapprochement of Russia and China: most recently no one believed that an alliance between these countries was possible. After the economic forum in St. Petersburg, Bloomberg and the National Interest began to write about it as a fait accompli.
 
There is an alliance in the economy: the trade turnover of Russia and China has reached 108 billion dollars, exceeding the once targeted mark of 100 billion.
 
There is an alliance in politics: the Russian and Chinese military conduct joint exercises not only in Asia, but also in the Baltic Sea and in the Arctic Ocean.
 
Xi Jinping guaranteed unity of power in China under his leadership for many years to come. He declared President Putin the closest friend. The process of this rapprochement was not simultaneous. At first, Xi wanted to be friends with the United States. But in 2014, during the Crimean events, the then American president started a quarrel between his country and China, and prior to Putin’s trip to Beijing, staged a trip to ASEAN countries that are China’s neighbours, and greatly fear its power. And Trump, with his rudeness and trade wars, only completed the long-running process [note to those who think Putin is pro-Trump: read that sentence, by a Russian commentator, once more]. And since the US and the EU are dealing with even less “grace” with Russia, the rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow was the result of Western actions. In this context, many are calling for the restoration of Western relations not only with China, but also with Russia.
 
As a result, Obama and Trump have achieved the opposite of President Nixon’s achievement in the early 1970s. Nixon was able to normalize relations with the Stalin-like politician Mao Zedong - for the sake of isolating the USSR. Obama and Trump, having in their hands huge trading advantages, have managed to antagonize China. Now Russia is close to repeating Nixon's success: making friends with China and refocusing on its economic activity, leaving the United States isolated.

​END TRANSLATION

Vince Dhimos answered a question in the German language sector of Quora. Our translation of the question and the answer follows.
 
https://de.quora.com/W%C3%BCrde-irgendein-anderes-Land-dem-Iran-helfen-wenn-es-einen-Krieg-zwischen-dem-Iran-und-Amerika-gibt/answer/Vince-Dhimos

Would any other country helpf Iran if there were a war between Iran and the US?


Vince Dhimos, editor-in-chief and geopolitical analyst at www.newsilkstrategies.com (2015-present)
 
Just answered
 
It is always hard to predict the future. All we can do is look at the evidence.
 
So here is a clue.
 
The web site Al-Masdar News Al-Masdar News reported today that Israel has experienced a disruption of its GPS signal. According to the report, this disruption extends into Syria, Iraq and Iran. There is only one country on the planet that is capable of disrupting the electronic controls and communications of aircraft and ground controls and that country is Russia -- although Russia denies that it is involved in this disruption.
 
Of course, Russia has not committed itself to joining Iran in a war against Israel or the US in the event Iran is attacked, although we know that Russia is strongly opposed to the efforts to stir up war sentiment against Iran, and Russia does not want any country to attack Iran. We also know that, at the same time, Russia wants to maintain good relations with Israel.
 
Therefore, we cannot expect Russia to actively fight the US or Israel if these countries choose to attack Iran.
 
But what if Russia used its electronic warfare equipment to prevent the Israeli or US fighter jets and bombers and the cruise missiles from flying?
 
The world has already seen that a US drone was downed in Iranian waters (yes, Iranian waters, shallow enough for the wreckage to be located by a fisherman). Is it not possible that this drone "lost its way"? The US insists that the drone was flying over international waters, and perhaps it was supposed to do that. But perhaps it was unable to follow the GPS signal correctly -- for some reason.
 
The US will not admit this if it is true because it does not want to lose face or appear to have been bested by Russia. And because it has no solution to the problem.
 
And Russia will never admit that it is disrupting the controls of aircraft, because it needs to work incognito as long as possible so that the US does not have time to seek a solution to these disruptions.
 
Could this be the real reason why Trump called off an attack on Iran?
 
Over a year ago, we learned that something was disrupting communications and navigation controls of US recon planes over Syria. We read back in April 2018 reports like this:
 
“General Raymond Thomas, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), revealed that Syria has become the frontline of electronic warfare and U.S. planes are being disabled.
 
"’Right now in Syria we are operating in the most aggressive EW environment on the planet from our adversaries," Thomas told a crowd of some 2,000 "intelligence professionals" at the GEOINT Symposium on Tuesday, according to Breaking Defense.
 
"’They are testing us every day, knocking our communications down, disabling our EC-130s, etcetera," he added.
 
“While Thomas did not say which country is responsible for the attacks, Russian jamming and electronic warfare capabilities in Syria have long been noticed. Earlier this month, reports surfaced that Russian jamming was affecting small U.S. surveillance drones.
 
“Those efforts were, according to NBC News, not affecting larger armed drones like the MQ-1 Predator or the MQ-9 Reaper. A Defense Department official told NBC News that the jamming was having an operational impact on operations in Syria.” [This sounds fishy. If the GPS signal is disrupted for small aircraft, then it would be disrupted for large ones as well. Sounds like the Defence Department is trying to appear comptetent].
 
After this report surfaced, the media fell silent on this topic.
 
Then in September 2018, Israel used a Russian Il-20 as a shield in an operation to destroy Syrian infrastructure with missiles and as a result, the plane and is crew were shot down. Russia responded by reneging on an old promise and sending Syria its powerful S-300 air defence systems that would be tied into its bigger S-400, radar and electronic warfare systems at the Khmeimim Russian air base at Latakia.
 
At that time, Russian Defence minister Sergey Shoigu made a startling statement:
 
"In parts of the Mediterranean adjacent to Syria, there will be radio-electronic jamming of satellite navigation, onboard radars and communications systems used by military aircraft attacking targets in Syrian territory."
 
However, I noticed no further news reports on any attacks thwarted by this system and since then saw multiple reports of Israel attacking facilities in Syria that it alleged to be Iranian. I had to wonder if the Russian jamming system was failing or if the Israelis had found a work-around.
 
But today’s report from Al-Masdar News suggests that the Russians had simply not been using this jamming system much or at all these past few months, but that now, with an attack on Iran imminent, it appeared that Russia had seen fit to put this electronic warfare system into active duty.
 
My guess is that Russia was holding off on using their EW systems because they feared the US and Israel would start developing ways to circumvent it. In other words, they were saving it for a critical situation. Like the threat of an attack on Iran, for example.


Since I wrote this, Al-Masdar News has reported that Russia is prepared to sell Iran its S-400 air defence system. It was previously reported that Russia had refused to sell this system to Iran to avoid exacerbating tensions, but this was later said to be a fake report (although the Russians are not above making such a claim in an effort to save lives).
At any rate, if this sale and delivery go through, then it will be as big a game changer as the use of Russian EW described above. First, during and just after the delivery of the system, Russian military technical workers will be in Iran for assembly and start-up and for training their Iranian counterparts. The same rules will apply as were set for Trump when he fired those Tomahawks into Syria in Abril 2018. You will recall that the Russians said they would not try to engage with the American military doing the firing, but that if one hair on the head of Russian assets or one Russian facility were harmed, Russia retained the right to destroy the platforms – naval assets in this case – whence they came. You will recall that this was the last time the US dared to fire missiles at Syrian assets, ever. I am fairly confident that, once the Iranian S-400 deal is inked, the Russians will apply the same ground rules to the US and Israel.
 
At the same time, they will continue to beam their jammers at Iran to protect its air space. And once the S-400s are installed and the Iranian military is trained in their use, there is not likely to be any further talk of war on Iran. 
​

In the following is our translation of an article from topcor.ru with commentary and notes [in brackets] by Vince Dhimos.
 
The blockade of Hormuz: has Tehran prepared a "nuclear surprise" for the US?
 
June 20, 2019
 
The situation in the Middle East is quickly heating up. Unidentified persons, "who looked like IRGC fighters," were spotted by US intelligence removing mines mounted on a ship after a series of attacks on tankers in the Gulf of Oman. The Pentagon decided to send additional forces to the region. Then Washington significantly threatened a military strike on Iran if at least one American soldier who was that far from home suffered as a result of Tehran’s actions. Now it is reported that the Iranian air defence hit the RQ-4 Global Hawk UAV or the MQ-4C Triton UAV.
 
The air clearly smells of impending war. Will the Islamic Republic withstand a massive strike by the United States and its allies?
 
We need to salute the Iranians, who are undaunted by a very serious threat. The Chief of the General Staff of the Republic said that in case of aggression Tehran would close off the oil transit through the Strait of Hormuz:
 
If we decide to block the passage through the straits, we are strong enough to do it, firstly, publicly, and secondly, to block it altogether.
 
The potential to block the strait is a weighty trump card for Iran. Most of the hydrocarbons produced by Middle Eastern monarchies go through Hormuz. The cessation of oil exports could lead to a global energy crisis. However, this would be the trigger for the start of a full-scale military operation by the United States and its allies against Iran.
 
Will Tehran hold out?
 
Technically, the blockade of the Strait can be carried out in several ways. In the narrowest part of Hormuz, Iranians are capable of sinking several large-capacity vessels. To prevent them from being raised, all approaches will be mined, and fire control will be established with the help of artillery and missile forces.
 
However, the United States has the most powerful army and navy in the world. Thanks to total air superiority, the US Air Force will smash the Iranian positions, the Navy will trawl the fairway and blow up the flooded ships. On the side of the US military will also act, most likely, Israel and the UK. Together, they are able to quickly "squeeze" Iran’s part of the coast.
 
So why is everything so calm in Tehran? Russian military expert Mikhail Khodarenok expresses an interesting proposition:
 
The situation, however, may look different if we imagine at least for a minute that Iran has at least tactical nuclear weapons.
 
Indeed, if Iran had tactical nuclear weapons, it could have aimed not only at the fairway of the Strait of Hormuz, having established a controlled nuclear minefield in advance, but also the US military infrastructure in the region. This is an extremely serious argument against armed aggression.
 
The key question is whether Tehran has its nuclear arsenal? Officially, no, and Washington is doing everything to keep it from being developed. Some time ago wesaid that there is a theory that Iran may already actually possess nuclear weapons. The fact is that Tehran worked extremely closely with Pyongyang on the missile program. Experts point out that the Iranian and North Korean missile programs complement each other in a surprising way: the DPRK relied on the ICBMs, and Iran - on medium and short-range missiles.
 
It can be assumed that this cooperation between the two “rogue states” was not limited, and Tehran may have received its own nuclear warheads developed for them within the framework of cooperation in North Korea. Otherwise it is quite difficult to explain the Iranian leadership’s confidence.
 
Author: Sergey Marzhetsky

Our thanks to CNN for the above-linked video


Vince Dhimos answered a question in the Spanish language sector of Quora. Translations of the question and Vince’s answer are shown below.
 
First let me say that the statements of the Trump administration have already painted the US into a corner, making it tough to wriggle out of a military confrontation. On the other hand, Trump made statements about Venezuela that almost made a military confrontation there inevitable. Yet the whole invasion idea just sort of dissipated. Remember when Trump interviewed the interim first lady of Venezuela at the White House and she asked what he would do about the Russian presence in her country and he said “Russia has to get out.” But Russia did not get out (although the msm kindly made up the story that the Russian military was leaving), and the story just died.
 
Just now Trump said he was calling off a planned attack on Iran. Unfortunately, that does not mean there will not be an attack.
 
You will recall our report on the op-ed of a high-ranking Israeli general who pleaded for US military involvement in Iran. The fact that Trump backed off of the planned attack could mark a turning point in US wars or in US-Israel relations.
 
https://es.quora.com/Atacar%C3%A1-preventivamente-Israel-a-Ir%C3%A1n-o-EE-UU-lograr%C3%A1-un-acuerdo-a-%C3%BAltima-hora/answer/Vince-Dhimos?prompt_topic_bio=1
 
WILL ISRAEL PREVENTIVELY ATTACK IRAN OR WILL THE US REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH IRAN AT THE LAST MINUTE?
 
This question indirectly makes a statement by implication, which is not accurate. The implication is that there are only two choices:

1) Israel attacks Iran, or

2) The US reaches an agreement with Iran.

If Israel decides not to attack Iran, regardless of whether or not the United States and Iran reach a new agreement, then that would be

3) a third choice, ie, multilateral negotiations including Iran and Israel.
Let’s consider these three choices:

1) Israel attacks Iran. If this happens, Iran would have the option to strike back. Iran once said it had 120,000 missiles hidden in tunnels in different mountains in Iran.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGzY73Dwr4A
​
Of course, Israel has its famous air defence system known as the Iron Dome. However, it is known that all air defence systems can be overwhelmed by large numbers of missiles flying simultaneously into their effective area of defence. Indeed, the Iron Dome was once overwhelmed by machine gun fire. Thus, like all air defence systems, the Israeli system is not invulnerable to attack.

Further, if Israel decides to attack Iran with bombs dropped from aircraft, Iran has the option to use its Russian-made S-300 systems, which can shoot down planes over long distances and are very accurate.

Further, the Iranian high military command recently stated that it has highly accurate guided missiles that can destroy a US aircraft carrier. Therefore, the United States will no doubt warn Israel against attacking Iran because it does not want to lose any of its aircraft carriers. If that happened, it would be more difficult for Donald Trump to be re-elected in 2020.

2) The United States reaches an agreement with Iran. Unfortunately, this is probably impossible because the United States already had an agreement with Iran, signed by several interested countries, and Donald Trump illegally and unilaterally abandoned this agreement without cause – because Iran had not violated the agreement. In so doing, Trump communicated to the whole world that the US is not a reliable partner and that no agreement concluded with the US is worthwhile because any president can invalidate it it at any time even without just cause. Iran has already stated this and has said that there is no point in negotiating with the US again.

3) Israel refrains from attacking Iran. Since options 1) and 2) above entail serious risks to Israel, this option is the only one that seems safe for the time being. But in this scenario, Israel has the option to negotiate with Iran in conjunction with other nations. Perhaps the best option would be to enlist the aid of the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Europe to negotiate between Israel and Iran. Iran has in the past offered to negotiate with Saudi Arabia but the latter refused to talk. But under the current circumstances, perhaps if the US and Russia initiated the negotiations, the Saudis would be willing to try. After all, Iran is a Muslim country, like Saudi Arabia, and its pilgrims try to make the hajj to Mecca once in their lifetime. It is also a friend of Russia. The US is deeply involved in this issue too.

The main problem in the Middle East is not the Muslim countries, and it is not Russia. Russia has friendly relations with both Israel and Iran. 20% of Israelis were born in Russia and Putin is concerned for their well-being. And Putin also meets with OPEC even though Russia is not an official member. Therefore, Russia is a very good candidate to lead negotiations between Israel and Iran.

As for Europe, it has very friendly relations with Israel but also wants to trade with Iran. Therefore, Europe is also also a good candidate to participate in these negotiations.
The United States is the only major world power that always sides with Israel against the interests of the countries that do not recognize the existence of Israel. This is a major disadvantage for America as an arbitrator because many Middle Eastern countries cannot trust it and realize that it is not impartial. The only way the impasse can be broken is through the intermediary of Europe and Russia. Given the threat of war, it is in the best interest of America to finally make some concessions to Iran. However, since it has already turned out to be an unreliable negotiator, unfortunately, the US may have to rely on the other countries to do the majority of the negotiating. It is also unclear whether Iran would go to a bargaining table with the US at this point. At any rate, it has refused to renegotiate the already-signed Iran deal. Indeed, in a civil court, it would win the case against the reneging US.

We can see from this example that by trying to achieve its goals by force alone and without diplomacy, the US has lost some of its power.
​
However, if other countries are still willing to cooperate with the United States, perhaps it can salvage some of its former power and become an integral part of the world community again and contribute to the restoration of world peace that is threatened by the abandonment of the Iran deal.