Grumble, grumble:
Iranian officials said Wednesday that they had signed a contract to buy an advanced Russian antiaircraft system, a move that could complicate any plans for an attack by U.S. or Israeli warplanes.
The sale to Tehran of powerful air defense technology would also be a new source of friction between the Bush administration and the government of Russian President Vladimir V. Putin. U.S. officials harshly criticized Russia for a missile sale to Iran completed in January.
In Crawford, Texas, where President Bush began a post-Christmas holiday, White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott Stanzel expressed concern over the disclosure, which had not been confirmed by Moscow as of late Wednesday.
“We have ongoing concerns about the prospective sale of such weapons to Iran and other countries of concern,” Stanzel said.
Well they might have concerns. The S-300 missile system, known by NATO forces as the SA-10 “Grumble”, would be a significant addition to Tehran’s air defense capability. Its deployment would sharply raise the stakes on any conventional strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, if in fact such an attempt was under consideration. Which I’m not saying it is. Or isn’t.
With the combat tested elements of the US Air Force parked on landing strips no great distance east and west, and the US Navy making a cozy home out of what Iran still considers the “Persian” Gulf, it’s clear why Iran would want such a capability. Less clear is why Russia, besotted with hydrocarbon-based lucre, needs to turn up the wick on an already simmering regional boiling pot. It can’t be for the money.
But as the American Enterprise Institutes’s Leon Aron points out in the Wall Street Journal, neither is it simply because former KGB operative and current Perpetual Leader Vladimir Putin enjoys playing the wrecker. Tempting though that role might be after a decade of playing supplicant, a newly confident Russia may well be enjoying a seat at the the Great Game again:
Russia’s strategy changed from money-making, influence-peddling and diplomatic arbitrage to a far riskier brinksmanship in pursuit of a potentially enormous prize. The longer Moscow resists effective sanctions against an Iran that continues to enrich uranium–and thus to keep the bomb option open and available at the time of its choosing–the greater the likelihood of the situation’s deteriorating, through a series of very probable miscalculations by both the U.S. and Iran, toward a full-blown crisis with a likely military solution.
As Iran’s patron, Moscow would be indispensable to any settlement of such a conflict, as was the Soviet Union when it sponsored Egypt in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. And through that settlement it would get its prize.
In one fell swoop, Russia could fulfill major strategic goals: to reoccupy the Soviet Union’s position as a key player in the Middle East and the only viable counterbalance to the U.S in the region; to keep oil prices at today’s astronomic levels for as long as possible by feeding the fears of a military strike against Iran (and see them go as far as $120-$130 a barrel and likely higher if Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz and disrupts the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf); and to use the West to prevent the emergence of a nuclear-armed Iran a few hundred miles from Russia’s borders.
So the deal is signed but the weapons systems aren’t there yet. A clock that had stopped ticking while diplomatic options played out is once again set in motion. Opportunities for miscalculation increase, even as off-ramps dwindle
Perfect.
There are two kinds of fatal mistakes that get made in international relations: The first occurs when an actor believes that the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action, overestimating the former and underestimating the latter. The second occurs when an actor mistakenly believe that by playing at proxies, he incurs no risk at all. Japan made the first error in World War II. It’s at least arguable that the US made the second by supporting the mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. All those chickens eventually came home to roost.
All the world’s a minefield again – step softly.
“We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow.”
— Henry Temple, Viscount Palmerston
Reading Lex’s comments regarding the “two kinds of fatal mistakes” that can be made in dealing with situations like this one made me realize, not for the first time, that one needs to learn and be instructed in how to view the options available and to have historical perspective……neither of which I have.
However, one thing I do have is the ability to think from the perspective of the people who have to carry out the ultimate decisions when or if they call for military action. And what I see, again and again, is the leadership of this country dithering around, making threats, and allowing enemies to prepare as best they can for what may follow. Think about the Vietnam air war as conducted by the Johnson admin…don’t hit airfields, don’t hit missile sites, don’t block the ports through which the defensive arms were arriving. And now, Iran is adding to it’s air defense capabilities. Were I a flyer, I’d be pissed that our government seems to be focused on getting me into a bad situation when the time comes to do my job.
Isn’t the Grumble the same system Syria already has and lots of ‘em?
Remember what happened several months ago?
I’m concerned but not fretful.
I’m more pissed off at the Evil littleman Ras-Putin.
BTW, IMO, the muhjahadeen defeating the Soviets by ‘89 was another factor that made them crumble along with other Ronnie policies….After all, a cowboy has got to shoot the snakes closest to his feet first. I also haven’t forgotten having to go under my desk in grade school over that megaton tif. I’ll be dammed if I or mine have have to hide under a desk because of some bearded, scrufty, beady-eyed, beyond misogynist Islamo-facist.
SteveC-
re “Were I a flyer, I’d be pissed that our government seems to be focused on getting me into a bad situation”
Whoa Feller, a little perspective. You make it sound as if GW (The Administration) ordered those systems up for Iran. What’s your point? That every country and tinhorn that threatens us happens because of our policies? How important do you think we are? Don’t you think whack jobs like Ol’beady (Ahmadinejad) and Ol’bullet-head (Chavez) do this for their own benefit? That atitude smells sorta Ron Paul-ish to me. I think Lex was just pointing out an ol’Soviet tactic Putin’s doing- Maskrikova. Take it east and you will find the PRC is doing the same thing- they need ‘earl too.
On the other hand, If you are making an argument for preemption I might listen but I’m not sure you are..I’ve made my ideas on that matter clear hereabouts. To me it’s like us allowing Muqtada al Sadr to continue to walk upright except we’re talking a nation-state in this case. A nation state we’ve been at war with since 1979. Whether we know it..or not.
b2
Actually high oil prices are going to be a very good thing for us in the medium term, because they are going to make a lot of alternatives financially viable, initially, and then much cheaper, ultimately. Don’t be holding oil stocks when that becomes clear, and it will within the next ten years.
One thing most of our enemies (Venezuela, Iran, Russia so included) has in common is almost complete dependence on oil funding. Energy strategy now IS defense strategy.
BabBob: Yeah, in a word, I was talking about preemption. Talk, threaten, stern letter to follow…repeat ad nauseum – that’s the way our government too often deals with known bad guys. In the meantime the target of our dismay prepares. Examples are many if not legion: I mentioned the incrementalism of LBJ”s directing of the Vientnam air war already, but thinking about it, look at Fallujah and how the current powers-that-be diddled that….they got the Marines to go in when the Marines did not want to go; and then, when the Marines were on the verge of finishing the job the first time, they stopped them; then they let the bad guys prepare like mad for months only to order our guys to go back in (with rules of engagement that still were restrictive). That’s what I was talking about…..and your point about Putin is taken, but I was not addressing that part of the equation. I don’t think we are in disagreement.
Outside of hydrocarbons, Russia’s only other cash-crop, per se, for export is arms. In the past year/year+ a very conscience policy decision has been made to revitalize that effort of which we are beginning to see the first fruits. Of note here, the equipment being sold to Iran is the older variant of the S-300 (S-300PMU1) as opposed to the PMU2 more “recently” (‘97) unveiled with a greater capability vs cruise and ballistic missiles. Nevertheless, it is anything but helpful or contributory to stability in the region as we’re sure Tsar Vlad understood when he signed off on the deal…
- SJS
I don’t mean to sound like I’m trivializing a very strategic and important action. But it does occur to me that it seems the Russians are bored with the current world order and are just spoiling for a fight with their old adversary…
Selling something like this to Iran – they had to know it would tweak the U.S. just a tad. Is that the greater threat?
I’m just afraid that what happened in Syria was a one-time shot. Now that it’s known it can be done, it can be prevented, presumably.
Dear SSG Jeff,
Maybe yes, maybe no about the most recent Syrian fun and games – but Russian technical competence has always had real limits and was one of the reasons that so many formerly pro-Soviet states came in from the cold – the weapons the Soviets sold them never lived up to its promises.
David,
Part of that was, of course, the fact that the stuff the Soviets provided their client states was always downgraded somewhat from what they were using themselves.
Hey, Cap’n Lex – where did you learn Russian? I spent about 3 months on the hill in Monterey flunking out of Russian, but happily I remember enough of it to work out the joke in the title.
SSG Jeff,
The US military has found a way to defeat Soviet and Russian equipment on any battlefield during and after the Cold War ended. Remember how formidable the Iraqi Soviet style air defense and equipment seemed in late 1990 and was written about in the press pre-war?
Like a hot knife through butter we were…
My $$ are on Uncle Sam.
Flatlander-
I truely hope what you envision comes to fruition and they can all go back to their Bedouin ways….
b2
b2 has a point. It is still ground based command and control which is not the most difficult to defeat. A few missiles into the right places and they are dumb and blind.