News sales pitch? US makes the world’s ‘finest’ anti-air systems, but sometimes they just don’t work, Pompeo explains

news-sales-pitch?-us-makes-the-world’s-‘finest’-anti-air-systems,-but-sometimes-they-just-don’t-work,-pompeo-explains

19-09-19 12:14:00,

Patriot missiles failed to protect Saudi Arabia from attack because even the world’s best anti-air systems sometimes don’t work, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said, expertly rebuking critics of the US defense industry.

Washington was left red in the face after missiles and armed drones successfully penetrated Saudi airspace – which is guarded by an arsenal of fancy US-made Patriot systems – hitting a major oil facility in the country.

Perhaps fearing that Riyadh might give the US defense system a 1-star review on Yelp, Pompeo used his master statesmanship to reassure loyal customers around the world that they didn’t spend billions of dollars on something that doesn’t actually work.

How is it that, after spending “$80 million a year” on air defense, the Saudis weren’t able to track “missiles that are crossing the Persian Gulf?” a journalist traveling with the secretary of state rudely asked on Wednesday.

Also on rt.com
Tehran will commit to ‘all-out war’ if Iran is targeted by military strike, FM Zarif warns

“We’ve seen air defense systems all around the world have mixed success. Some of the finest in the world don’t always pick things up,” Pompeo replied, dunking on all of the haters with facts and logic.

He went on to suggest that Saudi Arabia simply doesn’t have enough (US-made) “infrastructure” to stop such an attack, and that Washington will work with the Kingdom to alleviate this problem. Sounds expensive.

The Houthi rebels in Yemen have claimed responsibility for the precision strike, and warned that more attacks could come at any moment. Washington and Riyadh, however, have blamed Iran for the incident – an accusation that Tehran fiercely denies.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

 » Lees verder

Arms Sales and the Hypocrisy of the West

arms-sales-and-the-hypocrisy-of-the-west

12-03-19 09:41:00,

Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation:

It was the eleventh, and perhaps the most important meeting between President Putin and PM Netanyahu on 27 February, writes the well-informed journalist, Elijah Magnier: “The Israeli visitor heard clearly from his host that Moscow has no leverage to ask Iran to leave – or, to stop the flow of weapons to Damascus … Moscow [also] informed Tel Aviv about Damascus’s determination to respond to any future bombing; and that Russia doesn’t see itself concerned [i.e. a party to such conflict] ”.

This last sentence requires some further unpacking. What is going on here is the mounting of the next phase of the Chinese-Russian strategy for containing the US policy of seeding hybrid disorder – and of pouring acid in to the region’s ‘open wounds’. Neither China nor Russia wish to enter into a war with the US. President Putin has warned on several occasions that were Russia to be pushed to the brink, it would have no choice but to react – and that the possible consequences go beyond contemplation.

In short, America’s recent wars have clearly demonstrated their political limitations. Yes, they are militarily highly destructive, but they have not yielded their anticipated political dividends; or rather, the political dividends have manifested more as an erosion of US credibility, and of its appeal as a ‘model’ for the world to mimic. There is now no ‘New’ Middle East that is emerging anywhere that casts itself in the American mold.

Trump’s foreign policy-makers are not old-style ‘liberal’ interventionists, seeking to slay the region’s tyrannical monsters’, and promising to implant American values: that wing of US neo-conservatism – perhaps unsurprisingly – has assimilated itself to the Democratic Party and to those European leaders desirous of striking (a supposedly morally ‘virtuous’) pose in contra-distinction to Trump’s (supposedly amoral) transactional approach.

Bolton et al however, are of the neoconservative school that believes that if you have power, you use it, or lose it. They simply do not trouble themselves with all those frills of promising democracy or freedom (and like Carl Schmitt, they see ethics as a matter for theologians, and not a concern for them). And if the US cannot, any longer, directly impose certain political outcomes (on their terms) on the world as it used to,

 » Lees verder