Why is the MH17 supposed controversy rearing it ugly head again? Why are the two Russian media giants – RT and Sputnik, both carrying versions of the long discredited Buk missile theory of the attack? RT put that to bed in the article in Appendix A, featuring VT’s Gordon Duff, over a year ago.
Now, the current senseless and even idiotic versions being portrayed in the Russian press evidence two things:
1. That the news agencies are penetrated, not just Abby Martin penetration but that wonderful ability that planted Zionist agents have to direct and misdirect from embedded staff positions.
2. Israel and Victoria Nuland (Nudelmann) shot down MH17 – you already know why, now we are going to tell you how.
Back in 2009, Israel began shuttling planes into an old Soviet fighter base in Azerbaijan, (see Appendix C) through 2014 Turkey was aiding Israel, Georgia and Azerbaijan in planning and training for a sneak attack on Iran and it’s nuclear program. In 2014, two Azerbaijani officers defecting to Iran, including in 2010, the mission of the USS Grapple, leased by the US to Germany and crewed by Israelis, protected by Israeli patrol boats which delivered specialised runway denial and bunker-busting munitions for the proposed Iran attacks.
The governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan were fully complicit in this. When VT warned Iran, Azerbaijan was forced to dismantle the Israeli base, leaving only a drone facility and two aircraft in Azerbaijan. Those aircraft were F-15s that had been configured, using their powerful, long range radar to vector an Israeli attack fleet down across Saudi Arabia to key Iranian targets. Positioning in Azerbaijan with needed loiter time much reduced was vital to make such a mission possible.
Those planes are still there and Netanyahu has discussed this mission to attack Iran with Donald Trump.
One of these Israeli F-15s, spotted by Toronto, Canada based radar-tracking aviation buffs, flying with it’s transponder off was close enough to MH17 to have managed AWACS vectoring duties for that mission.
The F-15 is regularly used by Israel and the United States as an AWAC asset and a pair of F-15s operating in tandem are capable of controlling the skies over an area of upto 5,000 square miles.
We know this; Israel supplied Ukraine with pilots, advanced air defence missiles, ELBIT countermeasure/radar-spoofing systems (see Appendix B) and Rafael Python-5 AAMs. We believe that Israelis were also in the tower in Kiev guiding MH17 to it’s doom. We are still looking for the Spanish Air Controller who was aware of this and tried to introduce this story and has since disappeared from the surface of this Earth.
For those unfamiliar with radar spoofing, the size, speed, shape, type, range and altitude of a plane carrying one of these ELBIT systems can be altered; this is done by receiving incoming radar signals then altering and re-broadcasting them to reflect the desired information. Thus, an SU-25 at 8,000 feet at 300 knots may well be an Su-27 at 35,000 feet at 600 knots.
Let’s go back to that time, the BUK missile story never had any legs, it was obviously prepared in advance and as Duff stated on RT, you can’t fire a large air defense missile in the middle of the Ukrainian steppe in the middle of the day without seeing photos of the launch and the contrail, which could last for upto an hour, all over social media.
Then there’s the issue of the Su-25; news reports had two of these planes tracking MH17 when it was shot down, following right behind it but when the Buk missile story came out it was necessary to silence and debunk anything else. So the internet and the sea of Israeli assets that people it was flooded with bizarre assessments of SU-25 altitude limitations, “proving” the Su-25 didn’t shoot down MH17, though German forensic teams later found this was exactly what happened.
Instead, we were told the SU-25 couldn’t fly over 20,000 feet under any circumstances and data”proving” this was edited into Wikipedia by a helpful wiki editor in Haifa, Israel.
However, in 2015 Duff and a number of russian pilots, on an RT broadcast debunked this. Russian Su-25 pilots described taking their planes well over 40,000 feet in Afghanistan, with once describing hitting 47,000 feet.
What we have it seems, is a full-blown cover-up, one now two years old, where a wild and idiotic narrative is being twisted and manipulated, not just by Kiev but now by Russian media.
This is the sad part, and this method, a classic Israeli method, is used continually; like throwing rotting meat to a starving dog. RT and Sputnik have accepted a poisoned narrative covering the involvement of Israel, Viktoria Nuland and those we believe really responsible.
With press organisations too often staffed with poorly-trained and poorly-paid interns or, as we have found from time-to-time, fully complicit Israeli/CIA/Booz-Allen Hamilton/Google Idea Groups agents; the same dirty little tricks are successfully used over and over.
This is what we can see: Russian and Iranian media pounding Hilary Clinton and lauding Trump, even though the latter has promised war on Iran and direct, US military intervention against Russia’s only ally in the middle east: Syria.
Even more suspicious and we see this with consistency, both Iranian and Russian press will publish wildly conspiratorial accusations against America, genuinely irresponsible crap while key negotiations with the US are at a critical stage.
Both Russia and Iran are seemingly ignorant of the fact that crazy stories in their government-sponsored media feed their enemies in America, and by enemies we invariably mean the Zionist lobby, the ammunition they need to keep sanctions going or to undercut relations in other ways.
____________
Appendix A: The RT story from March 11th, 2015 that covers the MH17 tragedy honestly.
As the investigation into the MH17 tragedy continues in eastern Ukraine, the SU-25’s chief designer has told German media that the fighter jet could not possibly have taken down the passenger plane. RT spoke to former pilots about the jet’s capabilities.
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, crashed down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Everyone on board – 283 passengers and 15 crew members – perished in the tragedy.
A report on the official investigation published in September 2014 said the crash was a result of structural damage caused by a large number of high-energy objects that struck the Boeing from the outside. However, it did not conclude what the objects were, where they came from, or who was responsible.
Kiev and some Western states have placed blame on eastern Ukraine militias and Russia. The Russian Defense Ministry shared radar data pointing to other possibilities in July – including an attack by a Ukrainian Sukhoi-25 fighter jet, which was said to have been tracking the passenger plane.
While an official international investigation into the crash has been dragging on for nine months, the debate into the cause of the tragedy has been once again reignited by recent comments from the chief designer of the SU-25.
Kiev-born Soviet and Russian aircraft designer Vladimir Babak said on Monday that the SU-25 jet – which was spotted tracking the MH17 Boeing at the moment it crashed down – did not have the capability to shoot down a passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while still in the air.
“I believe all allegations that a SU-25 could be involved into this tragedy are a cover-up attempt,” Babak said in an interview to German channels NDR and WDR. “I cannot explain it otherwise. We cannot understand how an SU-25 could take down the Boeing.”
‘SU-25 capable of high altitude flights, can carry powerful missiles’
However, several former top officials and SU-25 pilots disagree with Babak.
Based on the analysis of the plane debris and the nature of the damage, there is a high probability the plane was stuck by an air-to-air missile and an aircraft gun, Lieutenant General Aleksandr Maslov, former deputy chief of the Russian Air Defense and Land Forces, told RT.
“The published photos [from the MH17 crash site] enable to assume that the Boeing was downed by a military jet. Besides that, the existing damage indicates that the airplane was shot with air-to-air missiles together with an aircraft gun with a 30mm caliber,” Maslov said.
Claims that the passenger plane was downed by a surface-to-air Buk missile “cannot be supported,” as the nature of the damage from the missiles is different, he added.
Commenting on the jet’s ability to maneuver at higher altitudes, the former commander of an aviation division, Major General Sergey Borysyuk, noted that the jet would have had the capability to “maneuver comfortably,” even at such a high altitude.
“I personally flew, and not once, at an altitude of 12,000 meters…,” he said. “My colleagues have risen to an altitude of 14,000 meters. The altitude of 10,500 was officially authorized during operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the plane, even at an altitude of 12,000 meters, has the capability to maneuver comfortably, its aerodynamic characteristics enable it to do so.”
Borysyuk explained that the R-60 missiles on the SU-25 have an infrared homing and a rod warhead. Citing the nature of the plane’s debris and the “precisely sliced fuselage,” he said that R-60 missiles were possibly used.
“The firing range of the missile is 7.5km. And in those conditions, the probability of hitting the target increases,” he added.
The former chief commander of Russia’s Air Force, Vladimir Mikhailov, also said he flew the SU-25, reaching an altitude of 12,000 meters and even 14,000 meters. He also stated that the plane “comfortably maneuvers” at such heights.
“If the plane was downed by Buk [missile defense system], it would have almost immediately fallen to pieces in the air and we could not have witnessed such large debris on the ground,” he said.
Along with Russia’s Ministry of Defense, he also questioned why the MH17 flight stayed within the flying corridor until it reached Donetsk, but then deviated from the route to the north.
In July 2014, Russia’s Ministry of Defense presented military monitoring data which showed Kiev military jets tracking MH17 shortly before the crash and posed a set of questions to Ukraine over the circumstances of the tragedy, which have still not been answered.
‘You can’t fire Buk missile in broad daylight with no witnesses’
Speculation about the combat capabilities of the SU-25 jet stem from the Russian definition of the aircraft’s service ceiling – which is not the same as its absolute ceiling, as defined by the US military, Veterans Today senior editor Gordon Duff told RT.
“The claimed service ceiling is based on the oxygen supply in the aircraft. Now, there is a claim that this plane [SU-25] will only work to 22,000 feet. At the end of World War II, a German ME-262 would fly at 40,000 feet, a P-51 Mustang propeller plane flew at 44,000 feet. The SU-25 was developed as an analogue of the A-10 Thunderbolt, an American attack plane. The planes have almost identical performance, except that the SU-25 is faster and more powerful. The A-10 Thunderbolt has a service ceiling of 45,000 feet. The US estimates the absolute ceiling, which is a different term,” Duff explained.
The known estimate for the absolute ceiling of the SU-25 is 52,000 feet (15.8km), he added.
Moreover, Duff said one cannot be entirely sure the detected fighter jet was an SU-25 at all, as modern radar spoofing counter-measures – such as those designed by BAE Systems and employed by NATO – are able to mask any other aircraft, be it an SU-27 or F-15, as another plane.
Duff said he also discussed the possibility of the MH17 flight having been shot by a ground-to-air missile with experts from the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the FBI, the Air Line Pilots Association, as well as air traffic and air operational officers – and they all agreed that no proof of anti-aircraft missile use has been provided to the public.
It is highly unlikely that the launch of such a missile would have gone unnoticed in the area, Duff stressed, adding that the trail left by the rocket in the air would have been witnessed and filmed by “thousands.”
“One of the things we settled on early on is that in the middle of the day, if this were a Buk missile, the contrail would have been seen for 50 miles [80km]. The contrail itself would have been photographed by thousands of people; it would have been on Instagram, on Twitter, it would have been all over YouTube – and no one saw it. You can’t fire a missile on a flat area in the middle of the day leaving a smoke trail into the air and having everyone not see it,” Duff said.
“There is no reliable information supporting that it was a Buk missile fired by anyone,” he added.
Appendix B
RADAR SPOOFING – SPOOKY STUFF
“THE GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA HAVE ALWAYS KNOWN RADAR IMAGINES ARE ALWAYS FAKED…”
BY GENE “CHIP” TATUM for Veterans Today
Editor’s note: I asked Chip to do this piece based on his background with the technologies and how vital it is for the public to know that all information about plane locations, altitudes, speed or even plane type have been faked though EW (Electronic Warfare) modules for years. Thus, the radar tracking from 9/11…faked…the SU25s tracking MH17….faked as well, wrong altitude, wrong planes, maybe not even Ukrainian or Russian at all. An Israeli F15 taking off from Azerbaijan was “there.” Did it magically turn into two SU 25′s? We can prove it could have. What Chip proves is that efforts to sell government conspiracy theories based on faked radar is going to have to come to an end. We are busting them now.g
In 2010, Israeli fighters bombed a suspected nuclear materials site in Syria. Here’s the million dollar question: How did they do it without tipping off Syria’s Russian-bought air defense radar? Israel hacked the network.
So lets consider what means could have been used and even more, how technology has advanced in the last four years.
DARPA and the U.S. Air Force are prime users and developers of radar systems, using them for early warning during the Cold War, when the Air Force had both airborne and ground based radar systems deployed around the world to guard against and detect Soviet aircraft. Radars were and continue to be one of the most important pieces of equipment on modern aircraft. The faster and farther away an adversary can be identified and accurately tracked helps to give the pilot an edge that can be vital during combat. Electronic warfare techniques (EW and ECM) and technology have been in use since World War II and go hand in glove with radar systems. These technologies are often used to jam, counter jam, spoof, or confuse enemy radar operators and weapon systems, allowing the aircraft to accomplish their mission.
But what exactly is Radar? And how does it work? And better yet, how can you Spoof or Fool it?
The basic idea behind radar is very simple: a signal is transmitted, it bounces off an object and it is later received by some type of receiver. This is like the type of thing that happens when sound echo’s off a wall. (Check out the image on the left) However radars don’t use sound as a signal. Instead they use certain kinds of electromagnetic waves called radio waves and microwaves. This is where the name RADAR comes from (RAdio Detection And Ranging). Sound is used as a signal to detect objects in devices called SONAR (SOund NAvigation Ranging). Another type of signal used that is relatively new is
laser light that is used in devices called LIDAR (you guessed it…LIght Detection And Ranging).
Radio waves and microwaves are two types of electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves, which I will call EM waves, like all waves, transport energy but can do so through a vacuum. Sound waves and ocean waves require matter to transport energy, but EM waves can do so without the presence of matter. Because of this, satellites can use radars to work on projects outside of the Earth’s atmosphere and on other planets. Another useful thing about EM waves is that they travel at a constant speed through a vacuum called the speed of light abbreviated by the letter “c” (299,792,458 meters per second). This is very useful to know to when doing ranging calculations.Once the radar receives the returned signal, it calculates useful information from it such as the time taken for it to be received, the strength of the returned signal, or the change in frequency of the signal. This information is then translated to reveal useful data: an image, a position or the velocity of your target.
When an EM wave hits a surface, it gets partly reflected away from the surface and refracted into the surface. The amount of reflection and refraction depends on the properties of the surface and the properties of the matter which the wave was originally traveling through. This is what happens to radar signals when they hit objects. If a radar signal hits a surface that is perfectly flat, then the signal gets reflected in a single direction (the same is true for refraction). If the signal hits a surface that is not perfectly flat (like all surfaces on Earth) then it gets reflected in all directions. Only a very small fraction of the original signal is transmitted back in the direction of the receiver. This small fraction is what is known as backscatter. The typical power of a transmitted signal is around 1 kilo-watt and the typical power of the backscatter can be around 10 watts.
To determine the range of a distant object that reflected a radar signal, the receiver must record the time when the signal was received and compare it to when that signal was transmitted. This time is the time taken for the radio wave to propagate to the object and back to the antenna. Since all EM waves travel at the speed of light in a vacuum, 299,792,458 meters per second (Air is not quite a vacuum but EM waves still travel through it at approximately this speed) it is very easy to determine how far away the object is (just multiply the speed of light by the time for the signal to get received). Another thing the radar does when it receives a signal is determine how strong it is. For ground penetrating radars the strength of the signal can tell how much the beds under the surface have different properties. A higher received power indicates a larger difference between neighboring beds.
Radars are being used to measure different parameters
1. Range Using Pulse Delay
2. Velocity From Doppler Frequency Shift
3. Angular Direction Using Antenna Pointing
4. Target Size From magnitude of reflected energy
5. Target Shape Analyzing reflected signal as a function of direction
6. Moving Parts Analyzing modulation of the reflected signal
Cost and complexity of radar is dependent upon the number of functions it performs. Radars are used for various applications like surveillance, imaging, remote sensing, altitude measurement, etc.
Blip enhancement is an electronic warfare technique used to fool radar. When the radar transmits a burst of energy, some of that energy is reflected off a target and is received back at the radar and processed to determine range and angle. The reflected target energy is called skin return, and the amount of energy returning to the originating radar is directly proportional to the cross-sectional area of the target.
Basic radars present the target information on a display and displayed targets are referred to as blips. Based on the relative size of the blips on the display, a radar operator could determine large targets from small targets. When a blip enhancing technique is used, small targets returns are augmented to look like large targets.
Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) is practiced by nearly all modern military units—land, sea or air. Aircraft, however, are the primary weapons in the ECM battle because they can “see” a larger patch of earth than a sea or land-based unit. When employed effectively, ECM can keep aircraft from being tracked by search radars, or targeted by surface-to-air missiles or air-to-air missiles. An aircraft ECM can take the form of an attachable underwing pod or could be embedded in the airframe. Fighter planes using a conventional electronically scanned antenna mount dedicated jamming pods instead or, in the case of the US, German, and Italian air forces, may rely on electronic warfare aircraft to carry them.
Today, Satellites may play a major role in ECM.
But lets get back to the 2010 Raid on Syria by Israel. The system used for the raid is called Suter.
U.S. aerospace industry and retired military officials indicated today that a technology like the U.S.-developed “Suter” airborne network attack system developed by BAE Systems and integrated into U.S. unmanned aircraft by L-3 Communications was used by the Israelis. The system has been used operationally in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The technology allows users to invade communications networks, see what enemy sensors see, and even take over as systems administrator so sensors can be manipulated into positions so that approaching aircraft can’t be seen or seen in false positions ans false sizes. The process involves locating enemy emitters with great precision and then directing data streams into them that can include false targets and misleading messages algorithms that allow a number of activities including control.
BAE and the Suter system developed and used in 2010 have made major advances in abilities. Not only can the system Spoof location, bearing, heading, and target size, but it can also project misleading information on aircraft in the vicinity.
For example, let’s say for sake of discussion that a fighter jet was flying missions in the Ukraine against Russian Separatists. Separatists missile defense systems would readily detect such flights, identify it as a foe via the ground radar systems, and lock on in preparation for launch. The Sutor software, however, could forward project data showing their aircraft in another location.The launched missile would then seek a hard target after launch seeking any hard target in the area. If that happened to be a commercial airliner, the missile would automatically lock on and destroy that target. If it could not acquire a target, it would search until fuel supply runs out and fall to earth.
Today’s electronic battlefield is more complex and deadly than ever-particularly when it comes to electronic surveillance and electronic warfare.
Press TV just announced that Azerbaijan has assured Iran no Israeli attack would occur from their territory. This is their announcement, from Tehran, moments ago:
Press TV – Azerbaijan’s ambassador to Pakistan says Baku will not allow Israel to use its airspace or land to carry out a military attack on Iran or any other country.
“Azerbaijan has been following a policy of non-interference in the [internal] affairs of other countries,” Baku’s Ambassador to Pakistan Dashgin Shikrov said in an exclusive interview with the Pakistani daily The Newson Monday.
The ambassador strongly rejected rumors in Western media outlets about his country’s readiness for providing Israel ground facilities for attacking Iran’s nuclear sites. “Azerbaijan is member of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and nobody should have any doubt that it will not permit the use of its territory for committing acts of aggression against another OIC member,” the ambassador added.
Israel has recently stepped up threats of carrying out a strike against Iran’s nuclear energy facilities. The threats are based on the unfounded claims that the peaceful nuclear activities of the Islamic Republic include a military component.
Iranian officials have refuted the allegation and have promised a crushing response to any military strike against the country, warning that any such measure could result in a war that would spread beyond the Middle East
______________________________
Earlier this week, Reuters confirmed through two Azeri officers that Israeli forces were in place in Azerbaijan and that the president was weighing options of supporting their attack. That text is now below from Reuters. Their unedited full text is at Addendum I:
Reuters – Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
It doesn’t take a genius to see that Azerbaijan was “caught with their pants down” and is now trying to lie their way out of this.
___________________________
In an explosive turn of events, Press TV announces Azerbaijan has “turned chicken” after receiving a chastising based on receiving an early distribution of this Veterans Today document through Russian sources.
Additional VT staff were, while at the Pentagon, responsible for drawing up the war plans, not just for the initial invasion of Iran but the American invasion of Azerbaijan, slated for 2008, as part of a Bush administration military takeover of the entire Caspian Basin.
The map for that attack by US troops from Iran is below:
US Army 2006 “exercise” plans predicated on a 2005 successful invasion of Iran, confirmed by direct Pentagon sources. (the author)
The cover sheet for the War Plans/Exercise Plans is below, a document that contained a full outline for needed capabilities for the successful takeover of all of the former Soviet Republics, beginning with Azerbaijan as seen on the map above.
Today, Azerbaijan announced it would allow Israeli planes to use their air bases to attack Iran. Reuters published the press release from Baku, one originally released in Veterans Today 27 months ago. From Reuters:
BAKU (Reuters) – Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy. But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?
Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.
____________________________
This attack might have happened sooner without the break in the Turkish relations
An investigation done by independent intelligence organizations made up of former CIA, Army Intelligence and FBI personnel as published on June 18, 2010, discovered a plot between Israel, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan to attack Iran.
At that time, Israeli planes were training in Turkey on terrain meant to simulate Iran. Israel would send over 8 planes at a time and 6 would return. Sources report that two would fly to Azerbaijan where Israel now occupies two former Soviet fighter bases.
Israel was building a secret air force in Azerbaijan. That “secret air force” is now no longer secret, it is public knowledge but few know its history or the threat to world peace this irresponsible act represents.
The bases were supplied through the Georgian port of Poti with cluster and bunker-buster bombs being delivered beginning June 10, 2010. Units of the Russian Navy observed the deliveries and reported the incident to a world press that suppressed the story. The ship delivering the illegal arms were flagged American, the USS Grapple.
In consultation with intelligence operatives, it was found that the USS Grapple had been leased to Germany who had then allowed Israel to use it to deliver bombs to the Black Sea port under American naval identity.
USS Grapple – ARS-53
We have since learned that Turkey, despite what they claim is a hostile relationship with Israel, has allowed over flight by Israeli military planes who are using Turkish air space to relocate to Azerbaijan after a two year period of disagreement.
This relationship, negotiated between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Turkish President Erdogan includes provision for Turkey to assume partial territorial control of a border region inside Syria.
Turkey is planning to seize this territory and call it a “buffer zone” but the “buffer” may include up to 30% of Syrian territory.
Israel and Turkey have agreed to “Balkanize” Syria. However, the roots of today’s announcement were known some time ago.
On June 18, 2010, over two years ago, this columnist released the following information:
Would Israel take the gamble, or make the U.S. do it?
“A week ago, Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. The Saudi’s quickly denied this.
The effort on Israel’s part was a ruse to cover their real plans, to attack from the Republic of Georgia, close to Iran’s northern border.
However, the breakdown in relations with Turkey after miscalculating the response to their Flotilla raid on a Turkish ship in international waters may have ended this operation.
Israel, whose arms agreements with Turkey mounted to nearly 5 billion dollars over a period of years, had been training pilots in Turkey for bombing attacks on Iran. During these training missions, Israel was smuggling aircraft through Turkish airspace.
Sources indicate that Georgia has become a major transshipment point for narcotics from Afghanistan and other countries in the region. Both a land route through Turkey and into Northern Cyprus and air and sea routes directly into Europe and North America have been cited.
Turkey had allowed Israel to use their air space for training because their terrain closely resembled areas of Iran that Israel planned to attack. However, Turkey was unaware that planes involved in this effort were being relocated to forward staging areas in the Republic of Georgia, making Turkey, technically, fully complicit in this planned illegal attack.
Israeli F-15
Helping coordinate the attack are intelligence units forward stationed in Azerbaijan, under the guise of technicians, trainers and advisors under the broad armaments agreements with that small nation.
Supply operations, moving necessary ordnance, much of it supplied by the United States under ammunition storage agreements, is being moved through the Black Sea to the Georgian Port of Poti, a major site for exporting coal and manganese ore.
Cover for the supply operations is being performed by the Georgian Coast Guard, set up by Israel and manned with Israeli observers. Their job is to keep Russian surveillance craft away from supply operations under the guise of a “Gaza type” naval blockade of Abkhazia, a separatist province supported by Russia.”
Reuters, in its story published today indicated confirmed sources within the military intelligence community of Azerbaijan. Reuters goes further:
Israeli F-16
“Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
“ICEBERG” RELATIONSHIP
That Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude, are well documented.
Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.
But a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.
_____________________________
The unknown factor is Azerbaijan’s ability to withstand a massive and immediate ground assault from Iran. US Army experts on the region indicate that Iran has a “superhighway direct to Baku,” the capitol of Azerbaijan and keystone to the massive Baku/Ceyhan pipeline.
Azerbaijan’s military, 45,000 active duty, a few thousand reserves and an unarmed and untrained inactive reserve of 300,000 veterans is extremely small in comparison to Iran’s military.
A reasonable estimate is that, under the best of cases with support from both Turkey and Israel, that Baku could fall in 48 hours or less, should they choose to participate in an unprovoked attack on Iran.
If you are not getting a piece of the oil biz, drugs are the only option
Azerbaijan is closely aligned with Turkey. However, they fought and lost a war in the early 1990’s against Armenia. Azerbaijan lost 16% of their territory at that time.
During that war, Azerbaijan turned to Al Qaeda and Chechen forces for support, an act that angered Russia. Azerbaijan is still a “safe haven” for terrorists and is commonly used to transit narcotics from Afghanistan and is a “way station” in human trafficking.
It is believed that an Israeli attack launched from Azerbaijan would unleash an immediate response from Armenia against Azerbaijan. The two nations have been at the verge of hostilities for nearly two decades.
A recent estimate of regional forces paints a very dark picture for Azerbaijan:
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia has followed a policy of developing its armed forces into a professional, well trained, and mobile military. In 2000, Centre for International Studies and Research reported that at that time the Armenian Army had the strongest combat capability of the three Caucasus countries’ armies (the other two being Georgia and Azerbaijan.
CSTO Secretary, Nikolay Bordyuzha, came to a similar conclusion after collective military drills in 2007 when he stated that, “the Armenian Army is the most efficient one in the post-Soviet space”.
This was echoed more recently by Igor Korotchenko, a member of the Public Council, Russian Ministry of Defense, in a March 2011 interview with Voice of Russia radio.
___________________________
CASPIAN OIL SUPPLIES AT RISK
Check out the company names on these oil fields. All would be grabbed in an attack on Iran as compensation for the pre-emptive strike.
The 1100 mile pipeline is the only outlet for oil from the Caspian basin to outlets on the Mediterranean. A branch of the pipeline services the massive Kirkuk oil fields of Northern Iraq.
The pipeline is owned by a number of companies with BP having a 30 percent stake.
The 25% stake theoretically held by SOCAR, the state oil company of Azerbaijan is under Israeli control, as collateral to underwrite Israeli weapons sales.
Israel has an agreement to link to the pipeline through Iraq, a deal negotiated between the Elat Ashkian Pipeline Company of Israel and the US backed Chalabi government that assumed control of Iraq after the 2003 invasion.
It is no longer clear as to whether the current government in Baghdad is still interested in this project.
Additional threats to the pipeline are in Armenia, where it may also be intercepted and in Turkey, where the PKK, a Kurdish separatist group, has put the pipeline out of commission many times.
The significance of the pipeline is great in that, even if Iran has no rationale to cut oil supplies through the Straits of Hormuz, it could easily gain control of 5% of the world’s oil output and put all Caspian Basin oil off the market without in any way interfering with free transit of sea-lanes.
Additionally, the transit fees charged for use of the pipeline are a major source of revenue for both Georgia and Turkey, a source that would immediately end.
Two “wild card” issues are Russia and Iraq. As Iraq’s government is now under Shiite control and Azerbaijan’s relations with, not just Armenia but Russia have been extremely poor, the chances for this move by Israel turning into a regional conflict or world war are very high.
Taking into account Turkey’s “ham handed” plotting with Israel against Syria and their attempts to spread influence into Central Asia, their short lived position as a potential leader in the Islamic World has clearly taken a “back seat” to Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia.
Israel’s timetable to attack from Azerbaijan is entirely dependent on the risks their long time but highly secretive ally is willing to accept.
Minimally, Azerbaijan might actually disappear. In a best case scenario, they would lose additional territory to Armenia and suffer total devastation of their oil production and processing facilities and destruction of their armed forces.
For the rest of the world, the result, as expected, higher gasoline prices, higher food prices and more threats to currencies already nearing collapse.
Editing: Jim W. Dean
______________________________
Addendum I
By Thomas Grove
BAKU | Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:46pm EDT
(Reuters) – Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy.
But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?
Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.
That is a far cry from the massive firepower and diplomatic cover that Netanyahu wants from Washington. But, by addressing key weaknesses in any Israeli war plan – notably on refueling, reconnaissance and rescuing crews – such an alliance might tilt Israeli thinking on the feasibility of acting without U.S. help.
It could also have violent side-effects more widely and many doubt Azeri President Ilham Aliyev would risk harming the energy industry on which his wealth depends, or provoking Islamists who dream of toppling his dynasty, in pursuit of favor from Israel.
Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defense headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
“ICEBERG” RELATIONSHIP
That Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude, are well documented.
Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.
But a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.
That he would risk the wrath of his powerful neighbor by helping wage war on Iran is, however, something his aides flatly deny; wider consequences would also be hard to calculate from military action in a region where Azerbaijan’s “frozen” conflict with Armenia is just one of many elements of volatility and where major powers from Turkey, Iran and Russia to the United States, western Europe and even China all jockey for influence.
Nonetheless, Rasim Musabayov, an independent Azeri lawmaker and a member of parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that, while he had no definitive information, he understood that Azerbaijan would probably feature in any Israeli plans against Iran, at least as a contingency for refueling its attack force:
“Israel has a problem in that if it is going to bomb Iran, its nuclear sites, it lacks refueling,” Musabayov told Reuters.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access.
“We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defenses and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations,” he added.
U.S. CONCERNS
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear it does not welcome Israel’s occasional talk of war and that it prefers diplomacy and economic sanctions to deflect an Iranian nuclear program that Tehran denies has military uses.
Having also invested in Azerbaijan’s defenses and facilities used by U.S. forces in transit to Afghanistan, Washington also seems unlikely to cheer Aliyev joining any action against Iran.
The Azeri president’s team insist that that will not happen.
“No third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran. All this talk is just speculation,” said Reshad Karimov from Aliyev’s staff. He was echoing similar denials issued in Baku and from Israel when the journal Foreign Policy quoted U.S. officials in March voicing alarm that Azeri-Israeli action could thwart U.S. diplomacy toward Iran and across the Caucasus.
Israeli officials dismiss talk of Azeri collaboration in any attack on Iran but decline public comment on specific details.
Even speaking privately, few Israeli officials will discuss the issue. Those who do are skeptical, saying overt use of Azeri bases by Israel would provoke too many hostile reactions. One political source did, however, say flying unmarked tanker aircraft out of Azerbaijan to extend the range and payloads of an Israeli bombing force might play a part in Israeli planning.
Though denying direct knowledge of current military thinking on Iran, the Israeli said one possibility might be “landing a refueling plane there, made to look like a civilian airliner, so it could later take off to rendezvous mid-air with IAF jets”.
A thousand miles separates Tehran and Tel Aviv, putting much of Iran beyond the normal ranges of Israel’s U.S.-made F-16 bombers and their F-15 escorts. So refueling could be critical.
INTELLIGENCE COOPERATION
There is far from unanimity among Israeli leaders about the likelihood of any strike on Iran’s nuclear plants, whether in a wider, U.S.-led operation or not. Netanyahu’s “red line” speech to the United Nations last week was seen by many in Israel as making any strike on Iran unlikely – for at least a few months.
Many, however, also assume Israel has long spied on and even sabotaged what the Western powers say are plans for atomic weapons which Israel says would threaten its very existence.
A second Israeli political source called the idea of Azerbaijan being either launch pad or landing ground for Israeli aircraft “ludicrous” – but agreed with the first source that it was fair to assume joint Israeli-Azeri intelligence operations.
The Azeri sources said such cooperation was established.
As part of last year’s arms deal, Azerbaijan is building up to 60 Israeli-designed drones, giving it reconnaissance means far greater than many analysts believe would be needed just to guard oil installations or even to mount any operations against the breakaway, ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
“With these drones, (Israel) can indirectly watch what’s happening in Iran, while we protect our borders,” legislator Musabayov said – a view shared by Azeri former military sources.
Less reserved than Israeli officials, the sources in Azerbaijan and in Russian intelligence, which keeps a close eye on its former Soviet backyard, said Baku could offer Israel much more, however – though none believed any deal was yet settled.
The country, home to nine million people whose language is close to Turkish and who mostly share the Shi’ite Muslim faith of Iran, has four ex-Soviet air bases that could be suitable for Israeli jets, the Azeri sources said. They named central Kyurdamir, Gyanja in the west and Nasosny and Gala in the east.
The Pentagon says it helped upgrade Nasosny airfield for NATO use. It also uses Azeri commercial facilities in transit to Afghanistan. But U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan is limited by Washington’s role as a mediator in its dispute with Armenia.
One of the sources with links to the Azeri military said: “There is not a single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is ‘officially’. Unofficially they exist, and they may be used.”
The source said Iran had been a main topic of talks in April with Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
RECONNAISSANCE, RESCUE
Azeri tarmac, a shorter flight from key sites in northern Iran including the Fordow underground uranium enrichment plant and missile batteries at Tabriz, might feature in Israeli war planning in less direct ways, the former Azeri officers said.
With Israel wary of its vulnerability to pressure over air crew taken prisoner, plans for extracting downed pilots may be a key feature of any attack plan. Search and rescue helicopters might operate from Azerbaijan, the sources said – or planes that were hit or low on fuel could land at Azeri bases in extremis.
Such engagement carries risks for Azerbaijan and its oil platforms and pipelines operated with international companies.
Defending against Iran is part of public debate in Baku. The United States has provided Azerbaijan with three Coast Guard cutters and has funded seven coastal radar sites as well as giving Baku other help in protecting its oil installations.
Relations have long been strained between the former Soviet state and Iran, which is home to twice as many ethnic Azeris as Azerbaijan itself. Tehran beams an Azeri-language television channel over the border which portrays Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and the West, as well as highlighting corruption in Baku.
Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies and agitators.
Faced with an uneven balance of force, Aliyev’s government makes no bones about Israel being an ally. As one presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained: “We live in a dangerous neighborhood; that is what is the most powerful driving force for our relationship with Israel.”
However, Israel’s confrontation with Iran may turn out, the arms build-up in Azerbaijan, including recent Israeli upgrades for its Soviet T-72 tanks, may have consequences for the wider region and for the stand-off with Armenia – consequences that would trouble all the powers with stakes in the Caspian region.
“We keep buying arms. On the one hand, it’s a good strategy to frighten Armenia,” one of the former Azeri officers said of the shaky, 18-year-old ceasefire over Nagorno-Karabakh. “But you don’t collect weapons to hang on the wall and gather dust.
“One day, all these could be used.”
(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem and Phil Stewart in Washington; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War. He is a disabled veteran and has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades. Gordon is an accredited diplomat and is generally accepted as one of the top global intelligence specialists. He manages the world's largest private intelligence organization and regularly consults with governments challenged by security issues.
He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
Duff has traveled extensively, is published around the world and is a regular guest on TV and radio in more than "several" countries. He is also a trained chef, wine enthusiast, avid motorcyclist and gunsmith specializing in historical weapons and restoration. Business experience and interests are in energy and defense technology.
TheAltWorld 
0 thoughts on “Duff on RT: Could SU-25 fighter jet down a Boeing? Former pilots speak out on MH17 claims”