Front Line State

Persia's Preacher Command has finally got a border with Little Satan... 

When the Assad regime seemed incapable of holding on to power alone or even with Hezbollah’s help, Iran has sent its own forces to fight in Syria—and to command. On the military side, Israeli analysts report that the Iranians are running things in Syria, and coordinating the activities of Iranian, Hezbollah, and Syrian forces—and of the Shi’a “volunteers” also fighting there, men from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Bashar al-Assad is no longer the ruler of Syria, but instead Iran’s front man. And those forces that Iran directs are in control of southern Syria, in areas bordering on Jordan and Israel.

For decades after the 1967 war Israel’s border with Syria was quiet, because Hafez al-Assad kept it so.

But those days are gone, because Iran is directly present east of the Israeli-Syrian border. And any notion that the United States would somehow deter, object to, or prevent such an expansion of Iran’s regional role is also gone. In fact, 44 appears to take a benign view of Iran’s actions in Iraq and Syria: if the United States and Iran are not collaborating, we are at least acting along parallel lines.

To the extent that Iranian troops fight the Islamic State in Iraq, some of the pressure on 44 to do more there (more U.S. bombing, more American advisers on the ground) is alleviated. To the extent that Iranian troops are fighting the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadi groups in Syria, 44 apparently believes, he need not come up with a workable Syria policy that aims at getting Assad out and defeating jihadis there. A front page story in the New York Times on March 5 summed it up: “44 is becoming increasingly dependent on Iranian fighters as he tries to contain the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria without committing American ground troops.”

Stand back—as far back from the Middle East as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—and it all makes sense. We do less, someone else does more. Meanwhile we conclude a nuclear agreement with Iran, easing regional tensions and pointing the way to a future rapprochement. If the Middle East won’t exactly be a zone of peace, the need for immediate American intervention will seem to disappear.

There is a certain logic to all of this, but only if you ignore totally the underlying regional power shift—away from the United States and our allies and to Iran. This policy will leave Iran dominant in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, and now it seems Yemen as well: the “Shia Crescent” of which King Abdullah of Jordan warned a decade ago. This policy abandons the role the United States has played in the Middle East since the Second World War, and hands it to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Pic - "Iran has the power to start a terrible chain of events. "

Arab Joint Force

The Curse of Unseriousness may actually have a semi cool result...

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has launched an initiative to form a "Joint Arab Force" to counter the rising threat of radical Islam, especially in wake of the recent atrocity perpetrated by the Islamic State terrorist group against Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya.

However, for such an initiative to succeed, it also needs the backing of the US, EU and other international parties.

But the general feeling in Cairo and other Arab capitals these days is that the US and the Western world are not serious when it comes to confronting the threat of Iran, the Islamic State and other terrorist groups in the Middle East.

There is especially a growing concern in the Arab world, particularly the Gulf, about the indifference in Washington and EU capitals toward the Iranian threat to stability in the Middle East.

As the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram noted this week,

"Not only has Iran occupied three islands of the United Arab Emirates, but it is now besieging the Gulf countries and trying to create a new reality on the ground by pushing its Houthi supporters in Yemen to seize control of the country and backing its supporters in Bahrain to destabilize the country, in addition to what it is already doing in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Add to this the terrorism of radical groups that are igniting fires in several areas in the region."

Earlier this week, Sisi flew to Riyadh for urgent talks with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz on the latest regional and international developments.

The main purpose of Sisi's visit to Saudi Arabia was to gain support for his plan to establish a "Joint Arab Force" to confront the threats of radical Islam and Iran. The Egyptian president's initiative reflects increased Arab disillusionment with the US Administration and its Western allies.

What Sisi is actually signaling is that Egypt and other Arab countries can no longer rely on the Western powers to deal with the threats and challenges posed by Iran and radical Islam. In a sense, this is an Arab motion of no confidence in the US Administration and Western powers.

On the eve of his visit to Saudi Arabia, Sisi said that the idea of creating an Arab force was designed to preserve the security and stability of Arab countries. "When we say a Joint Arab Force, we do not mean for attacking, but for defending the security of our countries," he explained. "It is important in the light of the dangers and threats."

Sisi said that he believes that his initiative will win the backing of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Jordan. "No one can say a negative word about our idea or its implementation because it is not directed against anyone and its goal is not expansion or invasion."

Sisi's initiative to form a "Joint Arab Force" came after reports about differences between Cairo and Washington over the need for a strategy to combat terrorism.

According to political analyst Ahmed Eleiba, the recent Conference on Countering Violent Extremism, which took place in Washington and brought together 60 nations,

"did not go as Egypt's representatives had expected. ... The conference did not give birth to a global strategy on terror, and served instead to underline differences between various points of view, especially those of Cairo and Washington."

Eleiba quoted Gamal Abdel Gawad, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo, who said he saw a clear divergence in views between Egypt and the US:

"The US still sees political Islam as a present and legitimate player, not a synonym for extremism. The US Administration also differentiates between extremist Islamists and moderate Islamists and believes that the moderates can be effectively integrated in politics as part of an acceptable political system. US officials believe that the integration of political Islam currents, including those suspected of extremism, in political life would be beneficial."

Eleiba concluded that, "With or without help from the West, Cairo has a strategy on terror and a multi-faceted plan of action."

President Sisi's initiative shows that moderate Arabs and Muslims have finally decided to take matters into their own hands and stop relying on the US and Western powers when it comes to combating radical Islam and the Iranian threat.

Still, Sisi and his Arab and Muslim allies are well aware that without the full support of the international community, the "Joint Arab Force" would not be able to be successful in its mission.

It is not that they are expecting support for the idea from the US Administration, which views Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate and moderate player. Rather, Sisi and his allies are hoping that the UN Security Council and some EU countries would approve the idea.

This is the first time in decades that Arabs have talked about forming their own military force to combat terrorism. Until now, most Arab countries believed that radical Islam and Iran posed a greater threat to the West.

Thanks to Sisi's new and bold approach, there is a real chance that Arabs will now lead the fight against extremists and terrorists, who are continuing to commit atrocities in a number of Arab countries. For the first time, the Arab countries are not asking the West to come to defend them against the atrocities of their Arab and Muslim brethren. This is a development that should be welcomed and backed by the US and the rest of the international community.

Pic - "Sisi has not been able to bring order to his own country, especially in Sinai, so how can he expect anyone to take him seriously when he suggests that we can improve our troubled Arab condition by taking the proven incompetence of ruling militaries at the national level to a wider regional level?"

Russia's Next Bomber

She's a hypersonic super fine bombing machine - radar avoiding with a ganksta lean.

 

Commonwealth Russia be like all working on her next generation bomber - the PAK DA

 

The PAK-DA, which literally means "prospective aviation complex for long-range aviation," is Russia's next generation long-range bomber project and it aims to one day replace the Tu-95 Bear and the Tu-160 Blackjack, and possibly the Tu-22M Backfire fleets. Much like America's next generation bomber, which has gone from a very high-end concept to one with more limited goals over the last decade, mainly due to affordability concerns, the PAK-DA has also lowered its performance and capabilities expectations, although to an even greater degree over a similar span of time.

 

Originally, the jet was supposed to be not only stealthy but insanely fast, with officials stating at one time that it would be a "hypersonic aircraft." Even if this was embellishment or some sort of misstatement, it was clear that originally the PAK-DA was meant to super-cruise at high mach speeds. This requirement has now changed drastically as it is now confirmed that the PAK-DA will be a subsonic aircraft, with a design more focused on long-range and heavily payload lifting capabilities than anything else.

A blended wing-body design, loosely similar to NASA's X-48, appears to be the result of this change in design focus. With this in mind, the PAK-DA may have similar design trade-offs as Russia's other major next generation combat aircraft, the PAK-FA, also known as the Sukhoi T-50 fighter.

 

The legendary Tupolev Design Bureau is said to have finalized the PAK-DA's design early last year according, at least according to Mikhail Pogosyan, the head of Russia's quasi state-ran super aerospace holding company, known as the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC). Basic stats for Russia's subsonic new bomber are still not totally certain, but an empty weight of around 125 tons with an additional 30 ton payload and range of around 7,500 miles seems to be roughly what the new design is shooting for.

 

 Target date for a first flight and entrance into service was announced last May by Lieutenant General Viktor "Skippy" Bondarev:

 

"The maiden flight should be performed in 2019... State tests and supplies will be completed in 2023, after which the aircraft will begin to enter service."

 

Currently, the NK-32s fitted aboard Russia's Tu-160s are said to put out a whopping 31,000lbs of thrust at full military power and a staggering 55,000lbs of thrust in full afterburner. An updated turbofan design, called the NK-32 Tier 2, will not feature the Blackjack's powerful afterburners, but it will utilize the NK-32's core and will focus on upping the engine's military, or 'dry' thrust, while also aiming to improve its fuel economy.

Even if Russia's timeline goals for its new bomber seem optimistic and the aircraft actually enters service later than envisioned, say around 2030, it will still be a major accomplishment.

 

Pic - "Tupolev's main concern is to develop and ensure effective operation of competitive strategic,special purpose aviation"



BiBi Gone Wild!

Whoa! Little Satan's avuncular PM just laid it out to play out in Great Satan's World Capitol. Complete Xscript (including ovationing applause) here

Money Shot #69...

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Pic - "This is why they call us Little Satan - to distinguish us from Great Satan - the United States of America"

With Us Or Against Us

Some things get more better with age!  

What should be the national-defense strategy of the United States against radical Islam, the most immediate and thoroughgoing security and cultural threat we face today?

First, because violent jihadists launch attacks against the United States when they have safe havens from which to plot and train, we must hunt down those terrorists wherever on earth they operate.

 

Second, the nations of the world must be put to a choice: You are with us or you are with the terrorists. Period — no middle ground. If you are with the terrorists, you will be regarded, as they are regarded, as an enemy of the United States.

The Bush Doctrine, by contrast, is the path to victory — if we get that one addendum right. It is this: Our enemies are not driven by American foreign policy, our friendship with Little Satan, our detention of jihadists at Gitmo, or the supposed “arrogance” our current president likes to apologize for.

 

 Those are all pretexts for aggression.

 

 

 



The Coming Battle Of Mosul

General Dempsey, chaircat of the Joint Chiefs, recently pointed out, “We may need to ask to have our advisers accompany the troops that are moving on Mosul.”

Oh Snap! 

However, there is no “may” about it. While the offensive will mainly be launched by the Iraqi Army, it cannot succeed without American forward air controllers and advisers, plus thousands of backup U.S. troops. CentCom did not give its briefing without knowing whether the plan included advisers. In that sense, the briefing was a trial balloon to prepare the public for a change of mind by the president.

The two battles for Fallujah show what would be likely to happen in Mosul.

Some 18,000 buildings were damaged or destroyed by 540 air strikes and 16,000 artillery and tank shells. Knee-deep water flooded the shattered city. Seventy Americans were killed and 600 wounded.

The coming offensive will be war on a scale without precedent in the past decade. To get to Mosul, 200 miles north of Baghdad, the Iraqi Army has to fight its way through five cities. Once that is done, logistics supply requires holding open a single highway that will be subject to repeated IED explosions and suicide-bomber attacks. Between 30,000 and 50,000 tons of munitions, water, fuel, and equipment must be delivered to the frontlines. Delays and shortages are inevitable.

This fight will not be swift. ISIS knows it will crumble if it cannot hold onto territory. If ISIS were to retreat, what happened in Anbar Province in late 2006 would be repeated: namely, the local populace would point out every jihadist and every hiding place.

A despised army is most vulnerable as it tries to retreat. Every identifiable enemy vehicle would be a target for air strikes by our forces. When ISIS first attacked Mosul, the Iraqi Army ran away. So ISIS will fight with confidence when the Iraqi Army comes back. The jihadists will hold tens of thousands of civilians as human shields, while hundreds of thousands will flee, guaranteeing confusion. Thousands of fanatical Islamists will be hiding among 150,000 buildings, determined to fight to the death.

The part of Mosul on the east side of the Tigris is Kurdish. That likely can be seized. On the west bank of the Tigris, the city is primarily Sunni, and the fighting will be tough. In Fallujah, about 150 squads searched 18,000 buildings, engaging in more close-in shootouts than all the police SWAT teams in history.

Iraqi soldiers, lacking the determination of United States Marines, will not battle house to house. Instead, they will stand off and smash the city with artillery and American air power. Mosul is five times larger than Fallujah. More than 2,000 air strikes and 100,000 artillery shells are likely to be delivered, with 50,000 buildings wrecked. The press will show pictures of rubble and misery day after day, week after week.


There will be nothing surgical about this offensive. A State Department spokesperson recently repeated a mindless trope: “We cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war.” Well, get ready for a lot of killing.

44 must prepare the public for an operation that will be fierce, long, and messy. Given the enormous costs, the White House must not commit to this operation unless it is convinced that taking Mosul would significantly advance American interests.

Now comes the strategic kicker: Who is the winner if Mosul is seized? Iran.

Currently, Iran has 7,000 troops and advisers working with the Shiite militias fighting alongside the Iraqi Army. Our bombing and our advisers would be supporting Iranian soldiers and Shiite militias advancing amidst Iraqi Army units. This operation would make America the de facto wartime partner of Iran. If the Shiite Iraqi Army did capture the destroyed Sunni city, Iran would stand out as a winner, having extended its regional power into a Sunni heartland.   

How would the White House explain that outcome to Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt — already estranged by the administration’s actions over the past six years?

By briefing about a military offensive for public-relations effect, the White House and CentCom have posed strategic questions without providing the answers. The war would not stop with Mosul. Seizing that city would still leave ISIS in control of northwestern Iraq, half of Syria, and large swaths of North Africa.

Before we again enter this war on the ground, we need to clearly define the final objectives in Syria, Iraq, and across the Maghreb.

Pic - "No True Glory"

Payambar-e Azam IX

Great Prophet Bay Bee!

Gay Free Persia's Preacher Command and Revo Guard fan boys commence their annual Great Prophet war game

The first day of these exercises will see mining operations by IRGC speedboats with various capabilities including marine radars and advanced communication systems, cruise missiles with a range of 25 km, medium-range anti-ship missiles, medium- and large-caliber torpedoes and naval mines.

For the first time in the world, helicopters equipped with missiles will be used in today’s military drills and also two coast-to-sea ballistic missiles will be fired which will be able to cover up to 270 kilometers of distance.

In another part of today’s operation, radar-evading missiles called Nasr (Arabic for Victory) will also be launched from the vessels which can fly at the altitude of 2-5 meters above the sea level.

The big deal about this Pyambar - e Azam is the fake believe American air craft carrier Iran has built to practice attacking...

State TV showed footage of missiles fired from the coast and the fast boats striking the mock U.S. aircraft carrier. The drills, which also included shooting down a drone and planting undersea mines, were the first to involve a replica of a U.S. carrier.

"American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else," the Guard's navy chief, Adm. Ali Fadavi, said on state TV, adding that a direct hit by a missile could set off a large secondary explosion. Last month Fadavi said his force is capable of sinking American aircraft carriers in the event of war.

Pic - "Sepāh-e Pāsdārān-e Enqelāb-e Eslāmi"