Connect with us

Latest

News

Staff Picks

Here’s how Iran explains the Russian military deployment

Iranian officials confirm Tehran asked Moscow to deploy military aircraft to Iran as a gesture of support for Iran. Despite the pull out they hint at further deployments and call Russia an “ally”.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

1,438 Views

A flurry of Iranian statements over the last few days have all but confirmed the point made in an article I wrote for The Duran.

The Russian deployment to Shahid Nojeh base near Hamadan was first and foremost intended to be a political statement of support by Russia for Iran.  This is what I said in my article which I wrote on 16th August 2016:

“This is primarily a political not a military act.  TU-22M3s have the range to strike anywhere in Syria from their bases in southern Russia and have repeatedly shown their capacity to do so.  There is no operational reason for them to fly to Syria from Hamadan.  That Russia has chosen to fly its TU-22M3s out of Hamadan is therefore a political statement by Russia that Russia and Iran are military allies in the joint fight against Islamist terrorism in Syria.”

Compare that with what Ali Shamkhani, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, is reported by the semi-official Iranian Fars news agency on 24th August 2016.  After confirming that it was Iran not Russia that asked for the Russian aircraft to deploy to Shahid Nojeh base, supposedly “to render logistical support for ground operations in Aleppo” Ali Shamkhani is quoted by Fars as saying

“Today, Iran has allied with Russia given its need to cooperation with powerful Russia and resistance front to confront the Takfiri plots and it is using Russia’s capabilities in air operations alongside the ground operations whose planners and military advisors are from Iran and it is a sign of might and not dependence…….

The close coordination among Iran, Russia and Syria in conducting the recent operations against the Takfiri terrorists in Syria brought into failure the US protracting strategy for imposing its will on the security equations in Syria….

Certain western and Arab countries which have the illusion of changing the regional equations, have been paralysed by the Islamic Republic’s political, defensive and security initiative in the recent operations……

The all-out relations between Iran and Russia which are based on the national interests and within the framework of strategic cooperation are not merely limited to the fight against terrorism and have more extensive aspects.”

(Bold italics added)

In other words Iran asked for the deployment of Russian aircraft to Shahid Nojeh base in order to demonstrate Iran’s alliance with Russia.  Note how Shamkhani refers to Russia as Iran’s “ally” and talks of their “all-out relations” and of how “the framework of strategic cooperation are not merely limited to the fight against terrorism and have more extensive aspects”.

Since the purpose of the deployment was primarily political – to signal to the world that Iran now has Russia for an ally – we can dispense with the idea that it was Russia’s “showing off” about its use of the base that caused the deployment to called off.  

Far from the Iranians being annoyed because the deployment was made public, the whole point of the deployment from the Iranian point of view would have been to make it as public as possible. 

That all but proves that it was the Iranians who tipped off Al-Masdar about the deployment and who provided Al-Masdar with the pictures of the Russian aircraft at Shahid Nojeh base that Al-Masdar published.

Not surprisingly in light of all this the Iranians are now going out of their way to say that the Russians might return to Shahid Nojeh base, with Ali Larijani, the powerful Speaker of the Iranian parliament the Majlis even hinting (wrongly) that they might still be there

“The Russian fighter jets’ flights from Hamadan airbase have not stopped and we and Russia are united in fighting against terrorism and this unity benefits the regional Muslims.”

The fact that it was the Iranians who originally asked for the deployment makes it more likely (though it does not prove) that the decision to withdraw the aircraft was made by Moscow. 

That this is so is further suggested by the way Levan Djagaryan, Russia’s ambassador to Iran, seems also to be going out of his way to make statements that there might be future Russian military deployments to Iran. 

The fact that Fars is quoting these statements at length suggests that Djagaryan’s comments are intended to reassure the Iranians that the Russian pullout does not signal any weakening of Moscow’s support for Tehran

“Moscow sees no obstacles to the further use of Iranian infrastructure, including the air base in Hamadan, for strikes against terrorists in Syria….The Russian aerospace forces may resume operations from Iranian base Hamadan when it is expedient, and by the decision of leaders of Russia and Iran…Interaction with Tehran on Syria has positive perspective…”

As an aside, it is interesting that the diplomat Russia has sent to Tehran to act as its ambassador there is as shown by his name an Armenian.  Armenia and Iran are close neighbours and have had an intense and centuries long interaction with each other.  There is still a sizeable Armenian community in Iran.   

An Armenian might be expected to know Iran well – and certainly far better than the vast majority of Russians (and Americans) do – and to be especially sensitive and knowledgeable about Iranian culture and Iranian concerns.  He might also by mere virtue of the fact he is Armenian to some extent deflect Iranian memories of past humiliations by Russia.

There have been some suggestions over the last two days that the Russians are insufficiently sensitive to Iranian concerns and have failed to appreciate the importance of using “soft power” in Tehran.  The fact Russia has chosen an Armenian to represent its interests in Tehran argues otherwise.

None of this of course explains why the pullout happened.  The Iranians – as might be expected – are going out of their way to deny that it was due to any outside pressure.  Fars quotes Shakhmani as having

“dismissed foreign pressures as the reason behind the Russian fighter jets’ leaving the Iranian territories”.

It is possible the Iranians underestimated the domestic reaction in Iran and asked the Russians to pull out so that they could prepare Iranian public opinion more thoroughly.  Certainly Shakhmani’s comments could be interpreted in that way.

However it is also possible that the Russians acceded to an Iranian request to deploy some of their aircraft to a base in Iran as a gesture of support for Iran, but made it clear that the deployment would be a short one limited to just 3 days in order to avoid complicating Moscow’s relations with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

 If so then that would mean there was no row between Tehran and Moscow after all, though it would also mean that the public relations part of the pullout was badly botched.  However if the deployment was intended as a signal to Washington, Riyadh and Jerusalem rather than the wider public, perhaps the Russians and the Iranians don’t care about that.

One way or the other it is clear that there is no major rift between Tehran and Moscow.  Whilst it will probably be some time before we know the exact truth of this affair, the key point is that Russia has deployed military aircraft to Iran with Iran’s agreement, and that both the Russians and the Iranians are going out of their way to say it may happen again.

The Iranians are going even further, with some Iranian officials like Shakhmani now calling the Russia Iran’s “ally”.  No Russian official has gone that far.  However despite the longstanding complexities and contradictions in their relationship, step by step that is what the Russians and the Iranians are edging towards becoming, and what one day they might indeed become.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

Clinton-Yeltsin docs shine a light on why Deep State hates Putin (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 114.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

Bill Clinton and America ruled over Russia and Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Yeltsin showed little love for Russia and more interest in keeping power, and pleasing the oligarchs around him.

Then came Vladimir Putin, and everything changed.

Nearly 600 pages of memos and transcripts, documenting personal exchanges and telephone conversations between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, were made public by the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Dating from January 1993 to December 1999, the documents provide a historical account of a time when US relations with Russia were at their best, as Russia was at its weakest.

On September 8, 1999, weeks after promoting the head of the Russia’s top intelligence agency to the post of prime minister, Russian President Boris Yeltsin took a phone call from U.S. President Bill Clinton.

The new prime minister was unknown, rising to the top of the Federal Security Service only a year earlier.

Yeltsin wanted to reassure Clinton that Vladimir Putin was a “solid man.”

Yeltsin told Clinton….

“I would like to tell you about him so you will know what kind of man he is.”

“I found out he is a solid man who is kept well abreast of various subjects under his purview. At the same time, he is thorough and strong, very sociable. And he can easily have good relations and contact with people who are his partners. I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the nearly 600 pages of transcripts documenting the calls and personal conversations between then U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin, released last month. A strong Clinton and a very weak Yeltsin underscore a warm and friendly relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

Then Vladimir Putin came along and decided to lift Russia out of the abyss, and things changed.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel

Here are five must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges from with the 600 pages released by the Clinton Library.

Via RT

Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected

Amid unceasing allegations of nefarious Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election, the Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges reveal how the US government threw its full weight behind Boris – in Russian parliamentary elections as well as for the 1996 reelection campaign, which he approached with 1-digit ratings.

For example, a transcript from 1993 details how Clinton offered to help Yeltsin in upcoming parliamentary elections by selectively using US foreign aid to shore up support for the Russian leader’s political allies.

“What is the prevailing attitude among the regional leaders? Can we do something through our aid package to send support out to the regions?” a concerned Clinton asked.

Yeltsin liked the idea, replying that “this kind of regional support would be very useful.” Clinton then promised to have “his people” follow up on the plan.

In another exchange, Yeltsin asks his US counterpart for a bit of financial help ahead of the 1996 presidential election: “Bill, for my election campaign, I urgently need for Russia a loan of $2.5 billion,” he said. Yeltsin added that he needed the money in order to pay pensions and government wages – obligations which, if left unfulfilled, would have likely led to his political ruin. Yeltsin also asks Clinton if he could “use his influence” to increase the size of an IMF loan to assist him during his re-election campaign.

Yeltsin questions NATO expansion

The future of NATO was still an open question in the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and conversations between Clinton and Yeltsin provide an illuminating backdrop to the current state of the curiously offensive ‘defensive alliance’ (spoiler alert: it expanded right up to Russia’s border).

In 1995, Yeltsin told Clinton that NATO expansion would lead to “humiliation” for Russia, noting that many Russians were fearful of the possibility that the alliance could encircle their country.

“It’s a new form of encirclement if the one surviving Cold War bloc expands right up to the borders of Russia. Many Russians have a sense of fear. What do you want to achieve with this if Russia is your partner? They ask. I ask it too: Why do you want to do this?” Yeltsin asked Clinton.

As the documents show, Yeltsin insisted that Russia had “no claims on other countries,” adding that it was “unacceptable” that the US was conducting naval drills near Crimea.

“It is as if we were training people in Cuba. How would you feel?” Yeltsin asked. The Russian leader then proposed a “gentleman’s agreement” that no former Soviet republics would join NATO.

Clinton refused the offer, saying: “I can’t make the specific commitment you are asking for. It would violate the whole spirit of NATO. I’ve always tried to build you up and never undermine you.”

NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West

Although Clinton and Yeltsin enjoyed friendly relations, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia tempered Moscow’s enthusiastic partnership with the West.

“Our people will certainly from now have a bad attitude with regard to America and with NATO,” the Russian president told Clinton in March 1999. “I remember how difficult it was for me to try and turn the heads of our people, the heads of the politicians towards the West, towards the United States, but I succeeded in doing that, and now to lose all that.”

Yeltsin urged Clinton to renounce the strikes, for the sake of “our relationship” and “peace in Europe.”

“It is not known who will come after us and it is not known what will be the road of future developments in strategic nuclear weapons,” Yeltsin reminded his US counterpart.

But Clinton wouldn’t cede ground.

“Milosevic is still a communist dictator and he would like to destroy the alliance that Russia has built up with the US and Europe and essentially destroy the whole movement of your region toward democracy and go back to ethnic alliances. We cannot allow him to dictate our future,” Clinton told Yeltsin.

Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’

One exchange that has been making the rounds on Twitter appears to show Yeltsin requesting that Europe be “given” to Russia during a meeting in Istanbul in 1999. However, it’s not quite what it seems.

“I ask you one thing,” Yeltsin says, addressing Clinton. “Just give Europe to Russia. The US is not in Europe. Europe should be in the business of Europeans.”

However, the request is slightly less sinister than it sounds when put into context: The two leaders were discussing missile defense, and Yeltsin was arguing that Russia – not the US – would be a more suitable guarantor of Europe’s security.

“We have the power in Russia to protect all of Europe, including those with missiles,” Yeltsin told Clinton.

Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Perhaps one of the most interesting exchanges takes place when Yeltsin announces to Clinton his successor, Vladimir Putin.

In a conversation with Clinton from September 1999, Yeltsin describes Putin as “a solid man,” adding: “I am sure you will find him to be a highly qualified partner.”

A month later, Clinton asks Yeltsin who will win the Russian presidential election.

“Putin, of course. He will be the successor to Boris Yeltsin. He’s a democrat, and he knows the West.”

“He’s very smart,” Clinton remarks.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

New Satellite Images Reveal Aftermath Of Israeli Strikes On Syria; Putin Accepts Offer to Probe Downed Jet

The images reveal the extent of destruction in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport.

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


An Israeli satellite imaging company has released satellite photographs that reveal the extent of Monday night’s attack on multiple locations inside Syria.

ImageSat International released them as part of an intelligence report on a series of Israeli air strikes which lasted for over an hour and resulted in Syrian missile defense accidentally downing a Russian surveillance plane that had 15 personnel on board.

The images reveal the extent of destruction on one location struck early in attack in the port city of Latakia, as well as the aftermath of a prior strike on Damascus International Airport. On Tuesday Israel owned up to carrying out the attack in a rare admission.

Syrian official SANA news agency reported ten people injured in the attacks carried out of military targets near three major cities in Syria’s north.

The Times of Israel, which first reported the release of the new satellite images, underscores the rarity of Israeli strikes happening that far north and along the coast, dangerously near Russian positions:

The attack near Latakia was especially unusual because the port city is located near a Russian military base, the Khmeimim Air Force base. The base is home to Russian jet planes and an S-400 aerial defense system. According to Arab media reports, Israel has rarely struck that area since the Russians arrived there.

The Russian S-400 system was reportedly active during the attack, but it’s difficult to confirm or assess the extent to which Russian missiles responded during the strikes.

Three of the released satellite images show what’s described as an “ammunition warehouse” that appears to have been completely destroyed.

The IDF has stated their airstrikes targeted a Syrian army facility “from which weapons-manufacturing systems were supposed to be transferred to Iran and Hezbollah.” This statement came after the IDF expressed “sorrow” for the deaths of Russian airmen, but also said responsibility lies with the “Assad regime.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to express regret over the incident while offering to send his air force chief to Russia with a detailed report — something which Putin agreed to.

According to Russia’s RT News, “Major-General Amikam Norkin will arrive in Moscow on Thursday, and will present the situation report on the incident, including the findings of the IDF inquiry regarding the event and the pre-mission information the Israeli military was so reluctant to share in advance.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry condemned the “provocative actions by Israel as hostile” and said Russia reserves “the right to an adequate response” while Putin has described the downing of the Il-20 recon plane as likely the result of a “chain of tragic accidental circumstances” and downplayed the idea of a deliberate provocation, in contradiction of the initial statement issued by his own defense ministry.

Pro-government Syrians have reportedly expressed frustration this week that Russia hasn’t done more to respond militarily to Israeli aggression; however, it appears Putin may be sidestepping yet another trap as it’s looking increasingly likely that Israel’s aims are precisely geared toward provoking a response in order to allow its western allies to join a broader attack on Damascus that could result in regime change.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”

Published

on

Via Zerohedge


A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending