We live in a fun world where it's very difficult to hide anything. Do not have time in the launch container on the ship, performing a real combat mission, to catch fire rocket, as almost immediately on the Internet appears a lot of photos of the incident. The video of the battle of the American special forces in Africa surfaced almost immediately after its termination.
So the report of the Australian TV channel ABC is no longer surprising. Especially since geopolitically Australia remains a small country, and from the global meinstream is quite far. And I want to emphasize my importance. Especially in global affairs, which form the basis of the current international agenda. How not to take advantage of such a convenient occasion, literally right into the hands of the going?
According to sources in the government, in the so-called Northern Territory of Australia, the key object of managing and observing the system of global intelligence "Five Eyes", uniting similar structures of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, was told to journalists. In view of the secrecy, details are not disclosed, but it "is relevant" to the management of a network of reconnaissance satellites. So they "can be used" to plan the impending US attack on Iran, as sources say, scheduled for August this year.
Judging by the tonality of the article, the authors of the possible involvement of Australia in the "big deal", of course, warms the soul, but it is much more important here is quite another. Preparation of a wide variety of plans, including the absolutely incredible, common cause of any general staff. So the fact of planning a possible US strike on Iran, as it is in itself, does not matter much. Plans are needed "in case", which very much may not even come. The situation seriously changes the reference to August. At a minimum, this means that the conditions for activating the plan are approaching the threshold, and the US military command is already testing the significant factors for a decision to open fire.
At first glance, this idea seems stupid. According to the public plans of the Pentagon, the American army is now constructed on the basis of the ability to wage one local war of a low-intensity conflict format and no more than two limited peacekeeping patrol operations. The United States has no reserves for anything more than reserves, and, most importantly, personnel. With a theoretical strength of 1,4 million (Army + Navy + Marine Corps + National Guard + Mobilization Reserve + "Weekend Army" structures), in fact, the Pentagon has only 420 thousand "bayonets", including all clerks and personal drivers in the Pentagon itself .
The number of direct combat units does not exceed 90 thousand people. Of which at least 60 thousand are already involved in the wars that Washington is waging today. Only in one Afghanistan the grouping of expeditionary forces totals 8,5 thousand people. In Syria, according to various sources, from 3 to 7 thousand In Central Africa - up to 5 thousand In Europe, approximately 18 thousand.
Roughly speaking, the invasion of Iran from America is corny there are no infantry, and without it, there is no question of any war with decisive goals there. Hence, of all the possible, the most realistic is the "Syrian version" of some one-time massive missile raid.
Moreover, it is the missile, without calling aircraft to the zone of defeat of the Iranian air defense. No matter how much they blithely do in the White House, they can not guarantee themselves against the slightest chance. The risk of successful destruction by the Iranians of an American aircraft remains. In this case, the US is in an extremely difficult situation. Resources start a big war "to punish the aggressor" no, but not to start means to show weakness, which is fraught with at least the resignation of the current administration. The outraged public will simply dismiss it on the ribbons. While missiles are not a pity at any end.
Bad in all this is the following. Usually we are accustomed to regard the top leadership of the state as people, first of all, sensible, therefore, from reckless emotions are distant. The price of unwanted accidental consequences is too high. However, the current behavior of the parties to the conflict openly indicates the opposite.
Trump personally, as, indeed, many other representatives of the American elite, constantly reacts to what is happening more "in a patsan way": striving, above all, to emphasize his superiority in steepness and strength. In addition, the owner of the White House resolutely denies those around him the right to respond to any American steps. The response is not considered to be reciprocal and is always treated as an unmotivated aggression, forcing "good America" to, of course, only reciprocal steps.
For example, to threaten Iran with sanctions and unilaterally abandon the nuclear deal, so to speak, it was the United States that started, but Trump, in response to the reaction of the Iranian leadership, wrote in his tweet:Never again dare to threaten the United States or you are expected to have such consequences as few people have experienced in the whole history.
This is not only inadequate to reality, such formulations directly ignore the behavioral and political culture of the Middle East, than only stimulate an escalation of rigidity in the exchange of remarks.
«We are a nation of martyrs, and we have endured hard times. <...> Know that if a war happens, it will destroy everything that you own"Said Major-General Kasem Suleymani, commander of the al-Quds elite special forces unit of the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
Someone may think that the exchange of statements is only for the domestic release of the pair and nothing more threatens. However, in reality every such attack, albeit at very little, but pushes the parties to the inevitability of "finally doing something" simply under the threat of losing face to their own supporters.
The matter is complicated by the fact that the leaders of Iran have time to continue only a verbal squabble, while the American four-year political cycle of Trump does not leave him. Especially in his personal domestic political conditions. Reelected for a second term with the reputation of a guy who threatened everyone, but all was sent, it will be quite difficult. Whereas even a frankly failed missile attack on Syria in the United States is to this day presented as a big and unequivocal victory in demonstrating the inflexibility of American military power. What is a very strong temptation to try to repeat this step with Iran, in a crisis with which the US has reached a deadlock.
However, in terms of the level of opportunities and the degree of political will, Iran is not Syria at all. In the case of a missile raid, traditional "patsan concepts" for the Middle East will not leave him no choice. And since the targets of the attack are likely to be key facilities, including the operating nuclear power plant in Bushehr, the damage will affect the civilian population as well as infecting the vast territory, thereby justifying in the eyes of Iran any option of a force response to the United States. Absolutely any.
It is unlikely that the Pentagon does not understand this moment, but to what extent it is taken into account - it is precisely the main factor on which the launch of the plan depends. I would like to hope for the presence there of "decision-makers" of a sufficient level of sanity. Otherwise, okay terrorist attacks in the US, it's the US problem, but then the Iranian Straits will completely close the Hormuz strait, it already has something for sure, and this is more than a serious problem for the entire world economy. Including ours.
But the behavior of the current tenant of the Oval Office, as well as his internal problems, even with his own administration and special services, nevertheless make one seriously doubt this. So, the attempt of a missile raid on Iran, too, can not be ruled out.