Steadfast Noon Risking Noon Twilight: What are the Risks of NATO’s ‘Nuclear Sharing’ Drills?
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 14.10.2024
NATO kicked off its annual Steadfast Noon nuclear exercises this week. What’s important to know about them? What military assets could they involve? What are the dangers associated with them? Sputnik explores.
NATO’s Steadfast Noon nuclear drills began on Monday and will run over the next two weeks, involving some 2,000 personnel from eight bases and over 60 aircraft from 13 bloc countries. The bulk of the drilling is expected to take place over the North Sea (about 900 km from the Russian border), as well as Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK.
Central to the exercises is drilling the concept of ‘nuclear sharing’ – which allows designated NATO allies’ jets to simulate combat missions using US nukes stored on their territory.
NATO’s nuclear sharing concept goes back to the Cold War, when the US deployed thousands of surface-to-surface, surface-to-air, air-tor-air and air-to-surface weapons with nuclear payloads to allied countries, including Canada, the UK, Greece, Turkiye, Italy, and West Germany. Guarded by US Air Force or Army personnel, the arms remained (and still remain) under the control of the US military, which has the codes needed to arm them.
By 1991, the USSR removed all its nuclear weapons from Eastern Europe, and urged the US to do the same. Washington never did, and today, keeps 100-150 B61 nukes in Europe and Turkiye, including:
- 10-15 bombs at Belgium’s Kleine Brogel Air Base – deliverable by F-16 MLU and F-35A jets.
- 10-15 B61s at Germany’s Buchel Air Base – carried by PA-200 Tornado jets and eventually, F-35As.
- Up to 45 B61s at Italy’s Aviano and Ghedi air bases, deliverable by F-16 C/Ds, Tornados, and F-35As.
- About 20 bombs at the Netherlands’ Volkel Air Base, delivered by F-16 MLUs and F-35As.
- Up to 50 B61s at Turkiye’s Incirlik Air Base, deployed by unspecified US military aircraft.
Poland has expressed readiness to host US nukes under the Nuclear Sharing program. It’s likely the bombs would be deployed at Lask Air Base, central Poland, where the US Air Force has a forward presence, and has already participated in nuclear drilling.
The B61 has been in production since the 1960s, with over 3,000 bombs of 13 different variants created. Today, the arsenal consists mostly of B61 Mod 3 and Mod 4 gravity bombs, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Produced since 1979, these weapons have a yield between 0.3-170 kt (Mod 3) and 0.3-45 kt (Mod 4). A Mod 7 variant also exists, with a yield between 10-340 kt.
Work is underway to replace all three with the Mod 12, which has a 0.3-50 kt yield. Production began in 2021, and 400-500 bombs are expected, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
What are the Risks Associated With Nuclear Sharing?
While B61s are tactical weapons, that doesn’t make them less dangerous than their strategic cousins, in light of the US nuclear doctrine’s allowance for nuke use in a first strike, even against “non-nuclear weapons states,” in certain circumstances. The bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 had yields of 15 and 21 kt, respectively.
The deployment of US nuclear weapons abroad frees the Pentagon’s hands for nuclear aggression involving tactical weaponry far beyond America’s home shores.
Nuclear Sharing program nukes are stored in so-called ‘Weapons Storage and Security System’ (WS3) facilities, situated in underground vaults. While info about the facilities, and even basic details on the nukes’ placement is ordinarily kept in strict secrecy, details about risks associated with hosting the weapons do occasionally leak out.
In 2023, the Federation of American Scientists published a photo of a damaged B61 at Volkel Air Base, showing the misshapen nuke on a trolley with one of its stabilizer fins missing. Neither US nor Dutch authorities informed the public of any incidents involving nukes at the base.
FAS researcher Hans M. Kristensen speculated at the time that the weapon was hit with “significant force,” possibly by a vehicle in transit, or “bent out of shape by the weapons elevator of the underground storage vault.” In any event, the incident constituted “the first publicly known case of a recent nuclear weapons accident at an airbase in Europe,” the observer noted.
FAS stressed that while the risks of an accidental detonation was extremely minute, such an eventuality would have risked widespread nuclear contamination.
Nuclear Sharing is also risk for another reason: heightened nuclear danger.
In the 1980s, when the US placed nuclear-armed Pershing and cruise missiles in Western Europe, it sparked the largest mass protests in modern European history, with three million people in Western Europe, and two million elsewhere, protesting the weapons, and for good reason: the deployment forced the USSR to put its nuclear forces on hair trigger alert, nearly sparking an all-out nuclear war in 1983.
French MEP backs Medvedev’s attack on NATO
RT | October 14, 2024
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was stating the “absolute truth” when he took aim at NATO countries and their support for Ukraine in a scathing recent social media post, French MEP Florian Philippot has said.
The European Parliament member was commenting on a post published by Medvedev on Sunday, in which he pointed to the problems that Ukraine’s Western backers are facing with their economies.
“The West has no money to clean up Florida after Hurricane Milton, no money for French farmers, no money to revive the German industry,” Medvedev, who now serves as deputy head of the Russian Security Council, wrote on Telegram.
These countries, however, still have funds to bankroll “a bunch of drunk and crazy” Ukrainians and to produce weapons “to exterminate the Slavs in the military conflict,” he added.
In a post on X, Philippot, who is leader of the Patriots party, wrote that Medvedev “just smashed the NATO countries by throwing absolute truths at them.” Philippot also took aim at French President Emmanuel Macron, saying he is “also taking a beating” for his recent pledge of a “new check for 3 billion to Zelensky.”
Philippot called on Macron to “stop these checks and these arms shipments,” arguing that Medvedev’s remarks are “factually terribly true!”
During a visit last week to a military camp in eastern France to inspect the training of Ukrainian troops, Macron pledged some €3 billion ($3.3 billion) worth of military aid for Kiev this year. Earlier in 2024, French farmers staged massive protests across the country, demanding that preferential trade rules granted to Kiev be lifted and calling for more government support.
In the US, former President Donald Trump last week accused the administration of President Joe Biden of neglecting the survivors of Hurricane Helene in the southeastern part of the country while sending billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Germany, which has emerged as one of Kiev’s top backers, is facing a new recession and its economy is set to contract for a second straight year due to shrinking industrial output, high energy prices, and weak foreign demand, according to reports.
Smotrich: Israel’s future is ‘to expand to Damascus’
MEMO | October 13, 2024
Israel’s finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has acknowledged his aim for a Jewish state that not only encompasses all Palestinian territories but also extends to Syria, in the latest such open statement referring to Tel Aviv’s potential pursuit of a ‘Greater Israel’ project.
In an interview for a documentary produced and aired by the French-language channel Arte, titled ‘Israel: Extremists in Power’, Smotrich stated that “I want a Jewish state… that operates according to the values of the Jewish people”.
He was then posed the question of whether Israel aims to extend its sovereignty which currently “starts at the [Mediterranean] sea and ends at the [Jordan] river”, to which he smiled and said “okay, bit by bit”.
Smotrich stated that “it is written that the future of Jerusalem is to expand to Damascus”, adding ominously “only Jerusalem, until Damascus”. The documentary then detailed the Israeli finance minister’s plan – and that of other extremist and right-wing Israelis – to have Israeli statehood extend into Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.
His comments come at a time when Israel continues to bombard Lebanon and launch its ground invasion, with many illegal Jewish settler groups advocating for Israeli forces to remain in Lebanon and settle the country. Efforts have steadily been made on that front, an example being a childrens’ book which was recently published on the Israeli occupation of Lebanon.
Although the Israeli government itself has kept the scope of its aims on defeating the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah, and has not formally announced any plans to occupy Lebanon and settle Jewish immigrants on newly-conquered territory.
The views of government figures such as Smotrich, however, as well as their significant support base, increasingly ignite concerns that Tel Aviv could potentially possess the goal of expanding Israeli territory in the Middle East via conquest of surrounding Arab states.
Netanyahu orders UN to evacuate Lebanon peacekeepers
RT | October 13, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demanded that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres withdraw UNIFIL peacekeepers from southern Lebanon, adding that by remaining there they are “providing a human shield to Hezbollah terrorists.”
In a Hebrew-language video message posted to social media on Sunday, Netanyahu told Guterres “it is time for you to withdraw UNIFIL from Hezbollah strongholds and from the areas of combat.”
“The IDF has repeatedly asked for this, and has been met with repeated refusals, all aimed at providing a human shield to Hezbollah terrorists,” he continued.
UNIFIL, or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, was formed in 1978 to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli forces to below the so-called ‘blue line’, which separates Lebanon from Israel and the occupied Golan Heights. Headquartered in the town of Naqoura, UNIFIL is currently composed of around 10,000 troops from around 50 countries, who are tasked with monitoring the demilitarization of southern Lebanon between the blue line and the Litani River.
Israel maintains that UNIFIL has done nothing to prevent Hezbollah entrenching itself in this region, while preventing its own forces from responding to the threat. In the weeks since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) crossed the blue line and entered southern Lebanon, UNIFIL has claimed that Israeli forces have repeatedly hit its bases and outposts.
Four Sri Lankan and Indonesian peacekeepers were injured on Thursday and Friday when Israeli tanks fired on their watchtowers, UNIFIL said. Another was hit by gunfire at Naqoura later on Friday, although UNIFIL said that it could not identify the origin of the fire. IDF bulldozers have demolished UNIFIL walls and bunkers, while a contingent of Irish peacekeepers found themselves surrounded by Israeli tanks earlier this week when they refused the IDF’s demand that they leave their outpost.
Switching to English, Netanyahu told Guterres to “get the UNIFIL forces out of harm’s way. It should be done right now, immediately.”
“Your refusal to evacuate the UNIFIL soldiers makes them hostages of Hezbollah,” he continued, warning that “this endangers both them and the lives of our soldiers.”
UNIFIL has refused to withdraw from its positions, and in a joint statement on Saturday, 40 countries contributing to the mission called on Israel to investigate the attacks on peacekeepers. One day earlier, the leaders of France, Italy, and Spain expressed “outrage” at the attacks, and accused Israel of violating UN Security Council resolution 1701, which states that its forces cannot operate in southern Lebanon.
Netanyahu said that Israel “regrets” injuring the peacekeepers, but added that the “simple and obvious” way to prevent further bloodshed is “just get them out of the danger zone.”
Israel escalated its military campaign against Hezbollah last month, pounding Beirut with a wave of airstrikes including one that killed the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. A ground invasion followed, and the death toll in Lebanon currently stands at over 2,100, according to the country’s Health Ministry. The IDF has acknowledged the deaths of two dozen of its soldiers in Lebanon, although Hezbollah insists that the true scale of Israel’s losses is far higher.
Stock depletion prompts ‘Israel’ to restrict arms use
Al Mayadeen | October 13, 2024
The Israeli military has adopted a policy of “strict weapons economy” regarding the use of shells and other arms in response to the depletion of ammunition stocks and the global embargo on arms exports to “Israel”, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.
According to Haaretz sources, the Israeli military is now operating under “tight weapons management,” with the authorization for using certain weapons being elevated in some cases to brigade commanders who hold the rank of colonel.
This policy is designed to ensure that senior commanders prioritize weapon usage based on their operational objectives, a responsibility previously handled by lower-ranking officers.
The Israeli military also mentioned that its “ammunition economy” for Iron Dome interceptions began in the second week of the war. However, the current state of ammunition stocks has necessitated further restrictions.
This comes as “Israel” is facing relentless military operations involving rocket, missile, and drone launches by the factions of the Axis of Resistance, namely Hezbollah, the Palestinian Resistance, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, and the Yemeni Armed Forces, since the onset of the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023.
In light of these developments, countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada have recently imposed restrictions on arms exports to “Israel”, raising concerns that Israeli-owned companies may not be able to offset these losses.
The devastating number of Palestinian civilians killed due to Israeli attacks on Gaza sparked widespread pressure on several countries to limit their weapons exports to “Israel”, especially after an International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling called on the occupation entity to do everything possible to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza.
In a related context, the Israeli security establishment has expressed concern over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to delay Security Minister Yoav Gallant’s visit to the United States.
Senior officials indicated that Gallant’s planned meetings with US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other top officials in Washington were intended to discuss “Israel’s” arms requirements and shipments, as well as the potential for an attack on Iran.
Netanyahu postponed Gallant’s trip, insisting on speaking directly with US President Joe Biden before the visit.
A couple of days ago, Netanyahu and Biden held a 30-minute phone call—their first in seven weeks—during which they discussed the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran, with the Israeli premier seeking to gauge US support and understanding of the situation.
Former NATO Secretary General stupidly celebrates his own failure to achieve security
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 12, 2024
Jens Stoltenberg is finally no longer the leader. This is not necessarily good news, as the new secretary general appears to be even more bellicose than the previous one and promises policies that could easily lead to strategic disaster in the current tensions between the Atlantic alliance and the Russian Federation. However, it is undeniable that one of the worst administrations in NATO’s history – and the one that came closest to an open confrontation with Moscow – has now ended.
Stoltenberg has recently made a number of statements praising his supposed “achievements” as NATO leader. He claims that under his leadership the alliance has achieved its highest numbers of troops on the eastern flank. Stoltenberg has also acclaimed himself for his success in allowing countries such as Finland and Sweden to join NATO as well as significantly expanding the number of troops on combat readiness for the event of a war.
In fact, Stoltenberg seems to be delighting over his own failure. It was under him that NATO saw the start of the continent’s biggest conflict since the World Wars in Europe, reaching a critical point in the regional security architecture. These tensions, which could at any moment escalate to the level of an open war with direct Western involvement, are precisely the consequence of the irresponsible policies implemented during Stoltenberg’s disastrous administration.
NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe, both in terms of new members and available troops, is not something to be celebrated, but rather lamented. It was precisely this expansion that led to the current conflict. If Stoltenberg were indeed a rational, prudent leader with a strong strategic sense, he would have been able to use diplomacy with the member countries and negotiate a de-escalation of the suicidal policy of “containment” against Russia. But, on the contrary, Stoltenberg endorsed all this and was active in worsening the Ukraine crisis, contributing significantly to the escalation of tensions and the beginning of the current war.
More than that, he failed to stop the warmongering of the member states, allowing NATO to begin full support for the Kiev regime. This support is now at its most critical point, as the alliance’s countries are close to authorizing the use of long-range weapons against Russian civilian targets – which could lead to a nuclear world war. Stoltenberg, even now out of office, is partly to blame for this, as it was under his administration that this anti-Russian madness was launched by NATO.
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that the alliance has never been so fragile. Contrary to what Western war propaganda claims, anti-Russian policies are not strategically beneficial for NATO. On the contrary, in addition to threatening global peace, these measures put the very stability of the alliance at risk. NATO is not “stronger and more united than ever,” as the former secretary general says, but at its most fragile and delicate phase in history.
On the battlefield, Russian forces destroy NATO equipment – and troops disguised as “mercenaries” – every day. The U.S. and Europe no longer have the capacity to continue supporting Kiev continuously, given the large number of losses on the front lines, but at the same time, the alliance is unable to end this support, falling into a vicious cycle of violence and defeats. In addition, countries dissatisfied with the situation, such as Hungary and Slovakia, are already beginning to create a dissident position within NATO itself, threatening the bloc’s long-term stability.
In the end, it was under Stoltenberg that NATO, pursuing irrational “expansion to the East,” reached its current stage of weakness, demoralization, and disunity. And, to make matters even more catastrophic, an open world war could yet emerge as a belated consequence of NATO’s actions over the past ten years.
Instead of celebrating his own failure as a leader, Stoltenberg should simply be grateful that he had the opportunity to leave office before the worst-case scenario arose.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
West must come to terms with the fact that it’s strategy has completely failed, get real about peace terms
By Sergey Poletaev | RT | October 12, 2024
Joe Biden is expected to make some new decisions regarding Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the country’s November elections. The US president was supposed to attend an important meeting of Kiev’s backers in Rammstein, Germany, on October 12, but canceled his visit, citing the need to stay at home due to Hurricane Milton.
What decisions can we expect to be made when it eventually takes place? Most likely, nothing particularly important will happen – here’s why.
A unified stance
Amidst the fog of propaganda, it can be hard to discern true motives, and often these only become clear over time.
After the start of Russia’s military operation, in February 2022, Western media presented a unified and convincing narrative: the entire so-called “free world” came together to defend Ukraine, determined to deliver a strategic blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin and restore the US-led global order. However, these proclamations didn’t match the steps taken by the West. After all, if your goal is to defeat an opponent, shouldn’t you do everything in your power to achieve it?
If the West was counting on a Ukrainian military triumph, it should have provided as much military aid to Kiev as possible. The first step would have been to open up full access to Western weapons arsenals; the second would have been to accept the country into NATO and turn it into a key stronghold on the border with Russia. Even if Putin would have done everything to stop this, such a step would automatically signify his defeat, since even a nuclear strike wouldn’t be able to change the situation and reverse the West’s decision.
Historical examples clearly illustrate this point. For instance, after withdrawing its troops, the West provided South Vietnam with nearly 3,000 aircraft and helicopters, 200 ships, over 2,500 combat boats, more than 1,000 tanks, up to 2,500 towed and self-propelled artillery pieces, and around 100,000 heavy vehicles, along with other equipment. Compare this to the situation in Ukraine, where receiving a dozen outdated fighter jets or two dozen old tanks is a major event.
Let’s take another example. In the aftermath of WWII, and during the Cold War, Türkiye became a key strategic region. Then Soviet leader Joseph Stalin demanded the country’s neutrality and even sought to establish a Soviet naval base in the area of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits. The USSR’s former allies, the US and UK, could not allow a Soviet military facility in the Mediterranean Sea, so Türkiye was accepted into NATO just three years after the alliance was formed, despite the fact that the country had nothing to do with the North Atlantic region or ‘Western democracies’. At the time, the Truman Doctrine was in effect, and the US was offering a security umbrella to anyone ‘under threat’ from communism.
The West isn’t buying Zelensky’s ‘Victory Plan’. So what happens next?
Why are things different now? The doctrinal principle that has shaped the West’s policy on Ukraine since 2014 is to prevent Putin from achieving his goals without engaging in a direct military conflict with Russia.
Biden and his administration have consistently stated that their priority is to avoid a full on confrontation with Russia, yet this message has largely been forgotten.
How does this principle align with what we have today – the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War Two, in which the West is fighting Russia by means of the Ukrainian army? Sure, it may not be on the same scale as Vietnam, but the military aid provided to Kiev is still significant.
The answer is simple: the decision-makers in the West – often referred to as the globalists – never truly believed that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield (Well, let’s say almost never; there was one notable exception, which we’ll discuss later).
Biden’s doctrine implied that the West could achieve its goals through financial and trade strategies. Recognizing that an armed conflict was looming, the globalists spent years developing an “economic nuclear bomb” that was supposed to bring Russia to its knees.
The plan was ambitious: they assumed that unprecedented “sanctions from hell” would essentially block Russia’s access to the outside world, plunging it into economic chaos and ultimately toppling the country’s current ruling elite. Maybe this wouldn’t happen overnight; perhaps it would take years, but the idea was that the Russian government would eventually yield to the demands of a people suffering from the sanctions, and would then yield to Western demands without firing a single shot. This would not only serve as a harsh lesson for Russia but would also send a strong message to the main enemy: China.
Ukraine’s military resistance wasn’t factored into this equation; many will recall that the Pentagon initially estimated that Kiev would fall within three days. Ironically, the US thought that if the 30-million-strong nation found itself under Russian control (the legitimacy of which no country in the world would officially recognize), it would become an unbearable burden for Putin and would only hasten Russia’s economic collapse.
How to lose friends and alienate sponsors: Zelensky is making enemies in America
Moscow failed to achieve its goals through a swift and relatively bloodless military operation, while the West eventually realized that its sanctions didn’t achieve the intended effect either – or perhaps even backfired. After brands like Ikea, Starbucks, and Disney left Russia, the Russian people didn’t rise up to overthrow Putin; and the seizure of rich people’s yachts and mansions didn’t spur a regime change either.
In reality, the globalists dramatically overestimated the West’s influence over economic processes, not only in the so-called Global South but even in their own backyard. Three years into the conflict, they still cannot prevent dual-use and military goods from entering Russia, let alone everyday consumer products. Moscow quickly rerouted its trade flows, bypassing the West, found new partners, prioritized import substitution, and, despite certain challenges, achieved noticeable and sustained growth in its economy and foreign trade. All of this turned out to be beyond Western control.
So, the original plan didn’t work out, and this prompted the West to urgently invent a new strategy.
At the same time, the Russian military didn’t take Kiev, and strategically withdrew from northern Ukraine. Vladimir Zelensky convinced NATO countries that this was the result of the military triumph of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU). He argued that if the West provided Ukraine with enough weapons, it could hold out for a significant period of time. Back then, in the spring of 2022, the outcome of the economic war was still unclear, and with no better ideas on the table, the West settled on the following plan: the Ukrainian army would wear Russia down in combat, while Western sanctions would do the rest.
The Rammstein meetings on Ukraine became a platform for making major decisions regarding military supplies; at the same time, Western diplomats toured the Global South, urging it to join the economic war against Russia.
At that time, there was still no talk of admitting Ukraine into NATO or directly intervening in the conflict. However, at some point, the West came to believe its own propaganda: it came to think of the Russian army as a paper tiger which might be easier to crush than the Russian economy. At that point, Western leaders became convinced that they could force Putin to bend to their will through military rather than economic means.
This shift occurred in the fall of 2022, after Ukraine’s attack on the Crimean Bridge, and advances in Kherson and Kharkov regions, the chaos of partial mobilization in Russia, and the resulting emigration of some dissenters. At that time, some seemed to believe that one more push could bring Putin down.
Riding this wave of optimism, the globalists approved a major Ukrainian counteroffensive. Throughout the winter of 2022-2023, tank, artillery, and missile units were formed, and new, highly motivated Ukrainian brigades were trained in Western Europe. They were supposed to break through to the Sea of Azov and bring Putin to his knees. For this counteroffensive, the West supplied Ukraine with as many weapons as it could without compromising its own interests.
A suitcase without a handle
Everyone knows how this story ended. Kiev’s operation failed and became a turning point in the conflict. Having fallen far short of achieving its military goals, Kiev lost the trust of its backers who realized that they were initially right to think that Ukraine could never win this conflict on the battlefield.
However, it also became clear that Biden’s doctrine was ineffective. Russia couldn’t be economically crushed and it couldn’t be defeated on the battlefield. So what now?
Since the spring of 2022, we have often pointed out that the West has to make a choice: either engage in serious negotiations with Russia or enter into a direct military conflict. However, no one in NATO has been willing to take responsibility for such a decision – neither the increasingly incapacitated Biden, or Western European politicians. Who are equally unfit, but for different reasons.
For now, all the West can do is continue to send aid to Ukraine, while the latter can still try to hold out on the frontlines. At the same time, the West is trying to “test the ground” about possible negotiations with Moscow, but so far this has amounted to little more than wishful thinking. NATO has convinced itself that the Kremlin will be happy to freeze the conflict without any commitments, as long as such an option is put on the table.
What happens when this third gamble fails as well? Will the West finally shake off its lethargy and make a clear choice, or will it continue to go with the flow?
It seems that all the scheduled participants of the Rammstein meeting were probably happy enough at the news of its cancellation. Clearly, neither the outgoing US president nor NATO’s European members have any viable ideas regarding Ukraine. This means that, at least until the US elections, Ukraine will continue to endure reverses, to the accompaniment of the globalists’ hollow rhetoric.
Sergey Poletaev is an information analyst and publicist, co-founder and editor of the Vatfor project.
The Arabs are transparently displaying their crossover to multi-alignment in a US-led Middle Eastern war
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | October 12, 2024
Reuters reported on Friday quoting three sources in the Persian Gulf that the regional states are lobbying Washington to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s oil sites as “part of their attempts to avoid being caught in the crossfire.” The exclusive Reuters report singled out Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar as also refusing to let Israel fly over their airspace for any attack on Iran.
These moves come after a diplomatic push by Iran to persuade its Sunni Gulf neighbours to use their influence with Washington. Saudi Arabia has drawn the bottom line to the Biden Administration that it is determined to pursue the track of normalisation with Iran that began with the rapprochement brokered by China in March 2023. This affirmation, well into the Iranian-Saudi détente’s second year, puts paid to any residual hope that Arab states may eventually join a ‘coalition of the willing’ against Iran.
The big picture here is that the Gulf states are positioning themselves to be among the key contributors to the ongoing power diffusion in their region — and globally. Tehran and Riyadh have found ways to responsibly share the neighbourhood. Suffice to say, the Arab world is already in the post-US and post-West era.
Now, this also signals Riyadh’s unease about Israel continuing its war on Gaza and Saudi frustration with the US for refusing to pressure Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government into accepting a ceasefire.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi was in Riyadh on Wednesday and was received by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudi readout said they discussed bilateral relations and regional developments as well as the “efforts exerted towards them.” The meeting was attended by Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan bin Abdullah and Minister of State and National Security Advisor Dr. Musaed bin Mohammed Al-Aiban.
Araqchi also held talks with Prince Faisal. “Discussions focused on relations and explored ways to strengthen them across various fields,” the Saudi report said. Only the previous day, Prince Khalid had spoken with his American counterpart Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.
The Saudi Press Agency reported Tuesday that the two defence ministers “discussed the latest regional and international developments, efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region, and ways to ensure regional security and stability.”
Clearly, the Saudis are on the ball, quite aware that they can assume a pivotal role in restoring calm and preventing the spillover of the conflict into the region. The ground beneath the Israel-Iran standoff is shifting in systemic terms.
The military implications are profound when the Gulf States close their airspace to Israel (and the US) for operations against Iran. The Israeli jets will now have to take a circuitous route via the Red Sea and circumvent Arabian Peninsula to approach Iranian airspace, which of course will necessitate mid-air refuelling and all that it entails in such a sensitive operation that may have to be undertaken repeatedly. In a ‘missile war,’ Iran may prevail.
How far the coordinated move by the Persian Gulf States to get the US to de-escalate the situation will work remains to be seen, as it depends largely on Netanyahu mellowing, of which there are no signs. Nonetheless, President Joe Biden did his part by calling Netanyahu on Wednesday. But the White House readout neatly sidestepped the main talking point between them.
It stands to reason, though, that the call from Biden did have some effect on Netanyahu. The New York Times reported that Israel’s security cabinet convened on Thursday during which Netanyahu discussed with senior ministers “the overall plan for Israel’s retaliation.”
The results of the meeting were not released. And Times concluded its report by taking note that “analysts still say neither side appears interested in all-out war.” Indeed, the Gulf states’ anxiety has become a key talking point between the US officials and Israeli counterparts.
After the call from Biden, Netanyahu asked Defence Minister Gallant who was scheduled to visit Washington to stand down. Meanwhile, the US Central Command chief General Michael Kurilla came to Israel for “a situational assessment.” Lloyd Austin followed through on Thursday with a call to with Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant but the focus was on Lebanon. No doubt, the Biden administration is pulling many strings in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu is known to be a realist himself. The point is, Tehran is explicit that Tel Aviv will pay a heavy price for any further hostile action. The warning will be taken seriously as Israeli military and intelligence — indeed, Netanyahu himself — have just had a preview of Iran’s deterrent capability.
Second, the price of oil has already begun going up and that is something Candidate Kamala Harris wouldn’t want to see happening.
Third, as for nuclear facilities, Iran has dispersed them to all parts of the country and the critical infrastructure is buried deep in the bowels of mountains that are hard to reach.
To be sure, Iran’s missile strike on October 1 carried also showed that it has superb intelligence to know what to target, where and when. In a tiny country like Israel, it is difficult to hide — although Tehran may not stoop so low as to decapitate opponents.
Suffice to say, all things taken into account, a terrible beauty is born in the Middle East: How far will the US go to rescue Israel?
The beginning of an alignment of the Arab states, as evident this week, refusing to be part of any form of attack on Iran and the signs of ‘Islamic solidarity’ bridging sectarian divides — these are, quintessentially, to be seen as tipping points. This is the first thing.
Secondly, this isn’t going to be a short, crisp war. Colonel Doug Macgregor, an astute US combat veteran in the Gulf War and former advisor to the Pentagon during the Trump administration and a noted military historian, aptly drew the analogy of the Thirty Years’ War in Europe (1618-1648), which began as a battle among the Catholic and Protestant states that formed the Holy Roman Empire but evolved in time and became less about religion and turned into a political struggle, more about which group would ultimately govern Europe, and ultimately changing the geopolitical face of Europe.
To quote from a 2017 essay by Pascal Daudin, an ICRC veteran who was deployed in major conflict situations such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Central Asia, Caucasus, Saudi Arabia and the Balkans, the Thirty Years’ War turned into “a complex, protracted conflict between many different parties –- known in modern parlance as State and non-State actors. In practice, it was a series of separate yet connected international and internal conflicts waged by regular and irregular military forces, partisan groups, private armies and conscripts.” (here)
True, a Middle Eastern War in the current setting already has combatants, bystanders and onlookers who, as the conflict evolves into a latter-day Crusade, are bound to jump in — such as Turkey and Egypt.
It will most certainly exhaust Israel — and vanquish the US presence in the Middle East — although a protracted war may prompt an intellectual upheaval that would ultimately bring about the Enlightenment to the region, as the Thirty Years’ War did to Europe.
Dismissal of Russia’s Security Guarantees in 2021 Led to Crisis Today – Hungarian FM
Sputnik – 12.10.2024
The current situation might not have happened if NATO had discussed with Russia its draft treaty on security guarantees in 2021, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told RIA Novosti.
He recalled that “serious discussion” was missing.
“Well, I remember those times, I think that what was missing there is a serious discussion,” Szijjarto said, commenting on whether it was a mistake by NATO countries to abandon the Russian proposal on security guarantees made in December 2021.
The minister noted that he always believes in discussion and dialogue.
“These discussions have not taken place, unfortunately. Well, now we are more than three years after or almost three years after, so it might not make sense what I say now, but I wish those dialogues had taken place. Because if they had taken place, we might not be in a situation where we are right now,” Szijjarto said.
US Vice President Harris’s Insulting Remarks
The way that US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris insulted Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is “not the best start” for bilateral relations, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told RIA Novosti.
Earlier this week, Harris during an interview appeared to refer to Orban, Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “dictators” and “murderers.”
“Definitely this is not the best start,” Szijjarto said, commenting on whether Harris’s words will have any consequences for the relations between Hungary and the US.
The words of US Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris toward Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban are unacceptable and disrespectful, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto told RIA Novosti.
Earlier this week, Harris during an interview appeared to refer to Orban, Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as “dictators” and “murderers.”
“Well first of all that is a scandal. That is a scandal to talk about my Prime Minister this way. This is unacceptable. This is a total disrespect not only towards the Prime Minister but to the Hungarian people,” Szijjarto said.
Hungary has always shown respect for the United States and expects to be treated the same way, the minister said.
“So as we have always shown respect to the American people, we expect the Americans to show respect to the Hungarian nation as well. And such kind of a statement shows a total disrespect which is unacceptable, especially between allies,” Szijjarto said.
The US House of Representatives, where Only the Ending of the Afghanistan War is Condemned
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | October 11, 2024
A majority of United States House of Representatives members voted on September 25 to approve a resolution (H.Res. 1469) condemning 15 members of the executive branch “for their role in the Biden-Harris administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and noncombatant evacuation operation, which led to the injury and death of United States servicemembers, injury and death of Afghan civilians, abandonment of American civilians and our Afghan allies, and harm to the national security and international stature of the United States.”
Sure, the withdrawal of the US from its war in Afghanistan could have been done better. But, where is the similar condemnatory resolution regarding the people in the US government who started, ramped up, and pursued year after year this long US war? The resolution focuses on deaths in the withdrawal. Yet, those deaths were a small fraction of the overall deaths from the war. The Costs of War project at the Watson Institute for international & Public Affairs tallies 176,000 people were killed directly in the violence of the Afghanistan War, plus several times that many more “killed as a reverberating effect of the wars — because, for example, of water loss, sewage and other infrastructural issues, and war-related disease.” Of course, had there not been a withdrawal, the war deaths total would have increased.
The resolution complains of “a chaotic, precipitous withdrawal that resulted in the death of 13 servicemembers.” But, included in those 176,000 deaths from the Afghanistan War that the Costs of War project reports there were the deaths of 2,324 US military members. If you want to condemn people for deaths of American military members in the Afghanistan War, focusing on the withdrawal seems a peculiar choice.
Of course, death and destruction of the Afghanistan war was mainly inflicted on the people of Afghanistan. That is in line with the usual outcome with US wars abroad.
Americans, though, did pay a large bill via taxes and inflation for the expedition of destruction that redounded no net benefit to the public. For the military-industrial complex, in contrast, the gains were grand.
The failure to condemn the Afghanistan War itself should be no surprise. The US House funded it year after year. Then, it has proceeded to fund the ongoing Ukraine and Israel wars with their combined death toll far exceeding that or the Afghanistan War. War is a big part of the legislative agenda.
Maybe years after the Ukraine and Israel wars finally end, a majority of House members will vote to approve resolutions criticizing how peace was achieved. That will call for some backslapping and other expressions of mutual approval.
The US House of Representatives is sometimes referred to by the nickname of the People’s House. A more appropriate nickname is the War House.
Macron slapped down for cheap talk on Israel arms ban
By Finian Cunningham | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 9, 2024
French President Emmanuel Macron got his marching orders with a smack on the head for daring to propose an arms embargo on Israel.
Israel’s obnoxious leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly mauled Macron in a phone call for having the nerve to make such a suggestion.
With his typical bluster and deceit, Netanyahu claimed that Israel was fighting for Western civilization against an “axis of evil” led by Iran and that Macron should be ashamed of himself for not backing Israel.
It seems that Monsieur President got the message and has now shut up.
Earlier, according to reports, the French leader said in an interview with French media that he would be pushing for a diplomatic solution in the region which would involve an international halt on arms exports to Israel: He said: “I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop supplying weapons [to Israel] to lead the fighting in Gaza.”
Macron added: “Our priority now is to avoid escalation. The Lebanese people must not in turn be sacrificed, Lebanon cannot become another Gaza.”
In response, Netanyahu blew a gasket, claiming: “As Israel fights the forces of barbarism led by Iran, all civilized countries should be standing firmly by Israel’s side. Yet, President Macron and other Western leaders are now calling for arms embargoes against Israel. Shame on them.”
As a matter of legal fact, Macron’s call for halting arms exports is correct. The International Criminal Court has ruled that the Israeli regime’s offensive on Gaza could amount to genocide. Under the Genocide Convention, all states are obliged not to facilitate in any way another state that is engaged in genocide. That means that all weapons exports to Israel should be banned.
The thing is, though, Macron’s talk is cheap and lacking in genuine concern for ending the year-long horror in Gaza, which has now been extended to Lebanon. For a start, as Macron admitted, France has negligible arms exports to Israel. That is not due to any ethical stance by France. It is simply because it has not been a supplier of arms to Israel in recent years, although France crucially helped Israel develop nuclear weapons illegally in the early 1960s – a reprehensible legacy that continues to destabilize and menace relations in the region.
So an embargo on Israel, as called for by Macron, will not impact French business in the slightest. Given that, it is, therefore, an easy call by Macron for a halt to weapons sales.
The United States and Germany are the two main arms suppliers to Israel, accounting for nearly 70 and 30 percent of all imports.
What is of more interest to Macron is “exporting” French prestige to the rest of the world.
Since Israel launched its genocidal assault on Gaza one year ago, the French leader has said nothing about stopping the international supply of weapons to the Israeli regime even as the death toll has increased to more than 41,000 people, mainly women and children.
The United States has the predominant leverage over Israel. Over the past year, the U.S. has supplied an estimated $18 billion worth of weapons to Israel, including warplanes and heavy bombs. The slaughter could have been stopped almost immediately if the Biden administration had used its leverage. European leaders like Macron could have put pressure on the U.S. to do so, but they didn’t. That is the real shame.
However, lately, what concerns Macron more is the expansion of Israel’s genocide to Lebanon is an embarrassing blow to France’s international image and illusions of grandeur. After all, Lebanon is a former French colony in the Middle East carved from the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France under the Sykes-Picot agreement (1916).
Lebanon has been an independent nation since 1943. Nevertheless, Paris maintains a strong influence on the country’s politics and business under a presumed “special relationship.” It must be galling for Macron, who waxes lyrical about his ambition of renewing “France’s Greatness” and geopolitical importance, to see the former French colony being blasted apart by Israel.
Over 2,000 Lebanese civilians have been killed in Israeli air strikes over the past two weeks. The capital, Beirut, is pounded with impunity by heavy Israeli bombardment. Millions of people are being forcibly displaced – and the French state is doing nothing to alleviate the suffering and violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty. Not that France did much when Israel previously invaded Lebanon in 1982 and 2006. But this time, given that Macron has made such a song and dance about restoring La France, the impotence in Paris is all the more humiliating.
Macron’s call for an arms embargo was initially welcomed by Middle Eastern nations, including Lebanon, Egypt, Qatar, and, of course, the Palestinians.
It seems the French president is aiming to create pressure on the United States and Germany to exert leverage on Israel and for France to get the kudos. He won’t get much change out of that move, as Netanyahu’s slap-down showed.
But another reason for the feebleness is that the ultimate aim is not a principled call to stop the conflict in Gaza or Lebanon but rather to salvage France’s reputation as a diplomatic player. Vanity is not a sound basis for anything substantial or meaningful.
Macron and Biden had announced a joint statement on September 25 calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon. The Israeli regime rudely ignored that call and proceeded to escalate the violence with the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut and intensified bombing of Lebanon.
Lebanon is being torn apart by Israeli aggression and France is seen as not being able to do anything about it. Neither having any political courage to do anything nor having any political clout.
Netanyahu is a despicable brute. But his slapping down of Macron is a priceless demonstration of how much of a non-entity the French leader is.
And by extension that applies to all the European so-called leaders who sit on their hands while the U.S.-backed Israeli regime murders with impunity.
Featured Video
Why Hamas Really Attacked Israel on Oct. 7
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Israel: Strategic Ally or Liability?
By Stephen Sniegoski | My Catbird Seat | June 12, 2010
The claim that Israel serves as a valuable ally for the United States is made by both pro-Zionists and much of the anti-war and anti-Zionist Left that is influenced by Noam Chomsky. As a result of the Gaza flotilla massacre, which has caused a world-wide uproar against Israel, the value of Israel to the United States is being publicly questioned in more mainstream foreign policy forums. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Why Hamas Really Attacked Israel on Oct. 7
- Declassified UK exposes British man who fought for ‘Israel’ in Gaza
- West’s death cult in a theater near you
- How the Yandex ‘Russian bots’ lie fell apart
- Burnham’s ‘Russia did Brexit’ ruse crumbles
- Estonia making movies and games to encourage war against Russia
- Four in five new UK jobs taken by foreigners – report
- Here’s what Trump’s latest U-turn really means for Russia and Ukraine
- The Houthis Are Not an Iranian Proxy
- Europe’s Energy Hypocrisy, Russian LNG Profits and US Dependence
- If Americans Knew
- Activists Abused By Israel Return to New Freedom Flotilla Mission
- 60 Minutes won’t tell the full truth about Israeli settler violence
- Nearly 50,000 women, girls killed or severely injured in Gaza since October 2023: UN Women
- ADL is working with AI companies to suppress alleged ‘antisemitism’
- Israeli occupation forces using social media surveillance unit to target hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank
- Israel’s New – and Terrifying – Security Doctrine
- Israeli Attacks Kill Five in Gaza, Including a four-year-old and a woman
- Air Force Major Who Called for Trump’s Impeachment Held in Solitary Confinement
- It’s a Genocide, I’m Into It’: Seinfeld Mocks Protest over Palestinian Children Killed
- Universities fire dozens amid pressure from Zionist billionaires
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Suggests Large Regions Of The Pacific Ocean Have Been Cooling For The Last 80 Years
- Germany’s Green Energy Debacle: High Energy Costs Force Kahla Porzellan to Close After 182 Years!
- New Study: 50 Years Of The Most Aggressive ‘Net Zero’ Policies Can Only Affect The Global Climate By 0.03°C
- US September “Heat” Was No Record…Many Records Set Decades Ago
- Latest European Green Energy Debacle; Portugal’s Largest Flagship Solar Park Insolvent!
- Green Energy Debacle: German Expert Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Warns Of Severe Economic And Social Consequences
- Two More Paleo Reconstructions Affirm Meters-Higher Sea Levels Across Ireland, Brazil 7000-6000 Years Ago
- New Study: Earth And Venus Surface Warmth Largely Explained By Convection And Lapse Rate, Not CO2 Or Radiation
- 2025 Nature Paper Claiming Worsening Global Drought Gets RETRACTED …Heavily Flawed
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
