Michael Gordon, "U.S. Begins Military Talks With Russia on Syria": Obama Fulfills His Promise to Putin

Tweet

In a lead New York Times news article entitled "U.S. Begins Military Talks With Russia on Syria," Michael R. Gordon reports on US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter's discussion on Friday with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. This chat was undertaken pursuant to Obama’s orders, after Russia sent marines, an artillery unit, 9M133 Kornet anti-tank missiles, BTR-82 troop carriers, Hip troop-transport helicopters, MI-28 MIL assault helicopters, heavy T-90 tanks and Su-27 fighter aircraft to protect the regime of mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, which was on the verge of collapse. Gordon writes:

"The diplomatic initiative amounted to a pivot for the Obama administration, which just two weeks ago delivered a stern warning to the Kremlin that its military buildup in Syria risked an escalation of the civil war there or even an inadvertent confrontation with the United States. Last week, President Obama condemned Russia’s move as a 'strategy that’s doomed to failure.'

. . . .

'The whole region is watching this,' said James F. Jeffrey, a former American ambassador in Iraq and Turkey. 'Russia is trying to change the security dynamic in the Middle East and demonstrating that it supports its allies to the hilt. The White House is sitting there and worrying about de-conflicting airplanes when we should be upping our efforts against Assad.'

But after failing to impede the buildup by convincing nations to close their airspace to Russian transport planes — Bulgaria banned the flights but Iraq did not — the White House is trying to make the best out of a situation it feels it is powerless to prevent."

The US is powerless to prevent this Russian military buildup in Syria? Or is this all in keeping with Obama's March 2012 open mike promise to Putin, delivered via then Russian President Medvedev:

Obama: "This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."

Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

"The whole region is watching this"? In fact, the whole world is watching the follies of a naïve American president, who has yet to realize that impotence is not a basis for implementing foreign policy.

New York Times Editorial, "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves": Maintain Sanctions on Russia, but Not on Iran

In an editorial entitled "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves," an alarmed New York Times begins by observing:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has added new, chilling nuclear threats to his aggression in Ukraine, where 6,000 people have been killed in a war with Russian-backed separatists. Mr. Putin wants to expand his country’s influence and standing, but his alarming behavior has estranged Russia from most other major powers, damaged its economy and narrowed its future options.

Even for Mr. Putin, the recent nuclear threats have set a new benchmark for hostility in the conflict he has ignited with the West. Two weeks ago, The Times of London reported on a meeting between Russian generals and American officials in which the Russians threatened a 'spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military' if NATO moved more military forces into the Baltic States."

The Times's conclusion:

"Russia’s bellicose behavior is a serious test for NATO, which has sometimes shown disturbing divisions. The Europeans and the United States have to stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia and in continuing air patrols and training exercises, as it becomes increasingly difficult to predict Mr. Putin’s next move."

Hey, isn't this the same Putin whom Obama asked Medvedev to inform, "After my election, I have more flexibility"?

And isn't this the same Russia which, according to John Kerry, agreed that the US State Department "fact sheet" describing the Lausanne "framework understanding" was accurate, yet at the same time declared its intention to deliver S-300 advanced air defense systems to Tehran?

And aren't Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's calls to annihilate Israel equally "chilling"? (Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel.)

So why should the Europeans and the United States "stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia," but not on Iran?

New York Times Editorial, "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks": Republicans Oppose Deal With Khamenei Because Obama Is Black

Did you happen to see pictures of Obama's joyous meeting with Cuban leader Raul Castro on Saturday in Panama City? I haven't seen Obama so happy with a foreign leader since his encounter with Venezualan strongman Hugo Chavez in April 2009. After conversing with Castro this past weekend, Obama declared:

"What we have both concluded is that we can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

A pity that Obama never broke into such a toothy grin while speaking with Netanyahu or declared following any of his meetings with the Israeli prime minister, "We can disagree with a spirit of respect and civility."

Today, in an editorial entitled "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks," The New York Times begins:

"It is a peculiar, but unmistakable, phenomenon: As Barack Obama’s presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive.

. . . .

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program."

I understand: The Republicans, and possibly Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Menendez, too, are opposing Obama's parlous nuclear deal with Khamenei (see Jackson Diehl's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama rolls the dice on Iran") because Obama is black. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama's foreign policy agenda, which fosters love and understanding of tyrants across the globe. I don't think I will ever forget Obama asking Medvedev to inform Putin, "After my election, I have more flexibility."

Plainly, The New York Times knows no shame.

Thomas Friedman, "The Three Faces of President Obama": Or Is Obama Merely Two-Faced?

Obama apologist Thomas Friedman is back with us today to explain away his beloved president's procrastination and cowardice. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Three Faces of President Obama" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-three-faces-of-president-obama.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Friedman tells us that Obama is simultaneously facing accusations of being a "Pollyanna, John Wayne and Henry Kissinger all at once," and would thus have us believe that if such is the case, none of these accusations could possibly hold water.

Or is it possible that all three characterizations are correct?

A Pollyanna? How about a mere simpleton? One need only recollect Obama's open microphone request that Medvedev convey to Putin his promise of "flexibility" during his second term.

John Wayne? Friedman directs us to Obama's targeted killing of terrorists by means of drones. But Friedman fails to mention the president's approval of the "surge" in Afghanistan, which needlessly prolonged American ground involvement in that war at a horrifying cost of lives and capital.

Henry ("Let them bleed a little") Kissinger? Do you recall Obama's March 2011 declaration:

“Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different.”

Well, Obama subsequently proved himself every bit as cynical as Kissinger, watching from the sidelines as Syrian madman Bashar al-Assad unleashed countless horrors against a captive civilian population.

Friedman's solution for reining in Putin?:

"The way the United States and European Union help, which will take time, is by forging new energy policies that will diminish Europe’s dependency on Russian gas — the mother’s milk of Putinism."

Unbeknownst to Tom Terrific, freeing Europe from dependency upon Russian gas need not take much time at all. If Friedman were to take a few minutes to read a Commentary article entitled "Will Israel Be the Next Energy Superpower?" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/will-israel-be-the-next-energy-superpower/) by Arthur Herman, he would quickly realize that salvation is to be found in Israel's enormous gas discoveries off its Mediterranean coast.

But heck, channeling Israeli gas to Europe might also demand that Obama put an end to his petty ideological war with Netanyahu, and this might be too much to demand of a president who has made the weakening of America's alliance with Israel a keystone of his foreign policy.

"The three faces of President Obama"? I think it is known to all that the man who once promised, "If you like your plan, you can keep it," is merely two-faced.

Bill Keller, "Russia vs. Europe": The World Needs Mandelas, but Instead Gets Putins . . . and Obamas

Bill Keller's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Russia vs. Europe" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/opinion/keller-russia-vs-europe.html) begins:

"The world needs Nelson Mandelas. Instead, it gets Vladimir Putins. As the South African hero was being sung to his grave last week, the Russian president was bullying neighboring Ukraine into a new customs union that is starting to look a bit like Soviet Union Lite, and consolidating his control of state-run media by creating a new Kremlin news agency under a nationalistic and homophobic hard-liner."

However, the rise of an autocratic, "new Cold War" oriented Vladimir Putin would not have been possible without the cringing flaccid foreign policy of Barack Obama. In a New York Times article entitled "Saudi Prince Criticizes Obama Administration, Citing Indecision in Mideast" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/world/middleeast/saudi-prince-accuses-obama-of-indecision-on-middle-east.html?hpw&rref=us&_r=0) by Steven Erlanger, we are told what Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia had to say about Obama on Sunday:

"'We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,' said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. 'When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.' He added, 'There is an issue of confidence.'

Mr. Obama has his problems, the prince said, but when a country has strong allies, 'you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.' The prince no longer has any official position but has lately been providing the public expression of internal Saudi views with clear approval from the Saudi government."

Or stated more simply, the Saudis regard Obama as a coward.

But of course, none of this should come as a surprise. Obama's obeisant attitude toward Putin was broadcast to the world as the result of the open microphone incident involving Russia's Medvedev.

Well, Putin sure as heck got the promise of "flexibility" and has been acting on it.

Remarkably - or perhaps as might be expected - Keller's op-ed of today's date never mentions Obama when describing the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin on the world stage.

Maureen Dowd, "No Brief Encounter": Obama's Touchy-Feely Foreign Policy

Obama is a touchy-feely guy. Recall how Obama needed physical contact with Russia's Medvedev, in order to press home his sincerity about future "flexibility" in his relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Well, Putin got the message and subsequently made a jackass of Obama when reaching a would-be arrangement for Syria's Assad, a Russian client, to hand over his chemical weapons, thereby dissolving the American president's flimsy red line, drawn with washable crayon.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "No Brief Encounter" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/dowd-no-brief-encounter.html?_r=0), Maureen Dowd tells us how Obama had planned to press the flesh with Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani at the UN, flash his winning smile, and make his charms be known. Dowd informs us, however, the Rouhani was not prepared to accept this overture:

"Obama administration officials at the U.N. on Tuesday explained to reporters that there would not be a bilateral between President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, or any sort of 'formal meeting.'       

 

'We’re not prepared for heads of state to negotiate or presidents to negotiate on the nuclear issue,' an official said, speaking on background. An 'encounter' would be permissible. Not a long one, but an 'informal, brief encounter.'       

 

'So,' a reporter asked, 'like a handshake?'       

 

'Yes, that type of thing,' the official replied. 'Exactly. On the margins here.'       

 

Except that, after the White House spent a week suggesting that there could be a press-the-flesh moment, Rouhani snubbed Obama. And not on the margins."

Or as Dr. Seuss might have explained it:

Not in a house,
not with a mouse,
not in a box,
not with a fox,
and certainly not on the margins."

 

After four and a half years as president, Obama still doesn't "get it."

Or as Maureen Dowd concludes:

"A handshake can’t be forced on someone who is not quite ready to come to grips."

Indeed, Rouhani is truly someone not quite ready to come to grips. You see, Iran is still feverishly working on its first atomic bomb.

Obama's Friend Putin Rushes to Fill a Middle East Power Vacuum

And so it continues:

In Syria, Shiite fighters from Lebanon (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hezbollah-boosting-assads-forces-in-northern-syria/2013/06/02/3bb59c7e-cb9e-11e2-8f6b-67f40e176f03_story.html), Iraq (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iraqi-shiites-fight-for-syrian-government/2013/05/26/6c3c39b4-c245-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html?hpid=z10) and Yemen (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Yemen-Houthis-fighting-for-Assad-in-Syria-315005) are hurrying to prop up Kerry's "dear friend" Assad in his battle against al-Qaeda backed rebel forces.

Arab Gulf states are considering punitive action against Iran's surrogate Hezbollah for its involvement in Syria (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/06/02/Gulf-FMs-reject-Iranian-interference-in-GCC-countries-.html).

Meanwhile, the fighting in Syria is spreading into Lebanon and threatening to destabilize this country as well (see: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2013/Jun-03/219235-deadly-clash-opens-new-chapter-of-syria-war-in-lebanon.ashx#axzz2V4UtEFgW).

Iraq is experiencing a new wave of sectarian bombings (see: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586800/new-wave-of-bombings-in-iraq-leaves-at-least-30-dead/).

And in Turkey, an open street rebellion has sprouted against the tyranny of Erdogan, one of Obama's "five top interatnional friends" (see: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269076-obama-names-turkeys-erdogan-among-top-five-international-friends.html), whose AKP Party has jailed more journalists than any other country in the world (see: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/02/2013217124044793870.html).

Now surely you remember President Obama's open microphone gaffe in Seoul in March 2012, when he asked for "space" from Putin in exchange for "flexibility" after the presidential election in November:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

So how is Obama's friend Putin responding to this regional crisis?

Russia is pouring fuel on the fire by threatening to send advanced S-300 ground-to-air missiles (http://news.yahoo.com/russia-unlikely-ship-300-missiles-syria-autumn-interfax-081448222.html) and MiG-29 fighter planes (http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Russian-papers-S-300-delivery-to-Syria-not-before-2014-315006) to Syria. This comes on the heels of Putin's decision in March to deploy Russia's navy in the Mediterranean on a permanent basis (see: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-send-nuclear-submarines-southern-seas-123741129.html).

Israel has gone on record as stating that it will destroy the S-300 antiaircraft system if it is delivered to Assad (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/168493).

Putin's action follows Obama's inaction in response to the use of chemical weapons by Assad against Syrian rebels. Putin is well aware that Obama's "red lines" are meaningless.

In short, a power vacuum has been created in the Middle East owing to a perception of American infirmity, and Russia is rushing to fill it. It remains to be seen whether this chaos, being fanned by Putin, will spread to Arab regimes in the Gulf, which have been traditionally friendly to the US.

Syria: The Russian Navy Responds to Obama's Promise of Flexibility

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

- Obama's Open Microphone Gaffe, Seoul, South Korea, March 26, 2012

Surely you remember President Obama's open microphone gaffe in Seoul, when he asked for "space" from Putin in exchange for "flexibility" after the presidential election in November.

How has Putin responded to this overture from Obama? There has been no cooperation from Russia in reining in Iran's nuclear weapons development program, and today we are told by The Sunday Times that "five Russian landing ships carrying hundreds of marines and military vehicles are gathering in the eastern Mediterranean in a show of force said by one Russian diplomat to be aimed at deterring western intervention in Syria’s civil war" (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/world_news/Middle_East/article1188841.ece).

Yet more evidence of Obama's wildly successful, doormat foreign policy . . .

New York Times, "The Other Power in the West Wing": Observe Valerie Jarrett's Delusional Perception of US Foreign Policy

In a New York Times article entitled "The Other Power in the West Wing" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/us/politics/valerie-jarrett-is-the-other-power-in-the-west-wing.html?pagewanted=all), Jo Becker writes of Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Obama:

"A Chicagoan who helped Mr. Obama navigate his rise through that city’s aggressive politics, Ms. Jarrett came to Washington with no national experience. But her unmatched access to the Obamas has made her a driving force in some of the most significant domestic policy decisions of the president’s first term, her persuasive power only amplified by Mr. Obama’s insular management style.

From the first, her official job has been somewhat vague. But nearly four years on, with Mr. Obama poised to accept his party’s renomination this week, her standing is clear, to her many admirers and detractors alike. 'She is the single most influential person in the Obama White House,' said one former senior White House official, who like many would speak candidly only on condition of anonymity."

Jarrett is a driving force only with respect to "domestic policy decisions"? Consider how in early 2010 Jarrett claimed that "we are going to continue to put pressure on Iran," "we are seeing steady progress in terms of a world coalition that will put that pressure on Iran," and "Iran will back down." Jarrett emphasized that signing of the STAR (Strategic Arms Reduction) Treaty with Moscow would cause Russia to join the coalition which would bring an end to Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Well, here we are two and a half years later in September 2012, and Obama's attempts to forge such an international coalition have met with devastating failure. As reported by The New York Times on Saturday (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/world/middleeast/iran-criticizes-egypts-mohamed-morsi-over-syria-comments.html):

"The 120-nation Nonaligned Movement handed its host Iran a diplomatic victory on Friday, unanimously decreeing support for the disputed Iranian nuclear energy program and criticizing the American-led attempt to isolate and punish Iran with unilateral economic sanctions."

Russia? Putin has categorically refused to place pressure on Iran and declared this past June (http://www.tehrantimes.com/politics/98558-putin-says-iran-has-absolute-right-to-nuclear-energy):

"Russia has always defended the rights of the Iranian nation in all international organizations and considers peaceful use of nuclear energy as the absolute right of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

Needless to say, ongoing Russian support of Iran and its ally, Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad, did not prevent Obama from asking Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin, in the American president's infamous open microphone gaffe, that he would have more "flexibility" with respect to European missile defense after the election (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/obamas-open-mike-chat-with-medvedev-yes.html).

Bottom line: Although The New York Times and other national newspapers have recently contended that the Republicans are weak on foreign policy, the foreign policy of the Obama administration, overseen, inter alia, by Valerie Jarrett, has proven itself delusional and dangerous.

Gail Collins, "Time to Elect the Worst Idea": Dog Poop on the Brain

Okay, I confess: I actually skimmed a bit of Gail ("Dog Poop on the Brain") Collins latest New York Times op-ed, "Time to Elect the Worst Idea" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/opinion/collins-time-to-elect-the-worst-idea.html?_r=1&hp). Needless to say, Collins, who never has anything better to say, didn't disappoint, and she again began this opinion piece with her lame running joke:

"Our topic today is picking the worst new trend of the political season.

Not including putting the dog on the car roof."

To her credit, Collins actually acknowledges that Obama has failed "to bring us all together in a postpartisan Washington."

But what is indeed the "worst new trend of the political season"? Actually, it involves Obama's ongoing attempts to appease enemies while beating up on America's longstanding allies, but given that November is approaching, doing it in surreptitious fashion. There is no mention whatsoever in the Collin's opinion piece of Obama's open microphone oversight while chatting with Russia's Medvedev, which this time, unlike his open mike faux pas involving Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, is not going to go away.

How times have changed. Forty years ago, Obama would have been impeached for this ignoble conduct, characterized by Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post as "enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world" (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-flexibility-doctrine/2012/03/29/gIQA9ZMtjS_story.html).

New York Times Editorial, "The Never-Ending Cold War": The NYT Gets Cold Feet

The New York Times made a concerted effort to ignore Obama's open microphone gaffe while speaking with Russia's President Medvedev. Although Obama's declaration that he would have more "flexibility" involving European missile defense after his reelection was a lead online news item for The Washington Post, it was relegated to "The Lede Blog" by The New York Times. I suppose The Times is of the opinion that if a tree falls in a forest and no one sees it happen, it didn't happen.

Well, unfortunately for The Times and Obama, Americans are not as stupid as they might think. Appearing with Jay Leno on "The Tonight Show" (see: http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/mitt-romney-part-3-3-27-12/1393113), Romney received prolonged applause when he stated that Obama should never have promised Russia "a different agenda" after November, "once the American people aren't watching."

No longer able to brush aside Obama's gaffe, the editorial board of The New York Times today writes in "The Never-Ending Cold War" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/opinion/the-never-ending-cold-war.html?hp) that Obama's revelation to Medvedev was "an honest statement of fact." The editorial board continues:

"Saying he will have flexibility on missile defense doesn’t mean Mr. Obama will 'cave.'"

Oh really? The editorial acknowledges that "Russia is an unsavory player." If so, why reveal to this unsavory player all of your cards?

The editorial says that Russia has agreed to "limited" sanctions against Iran, which is America's "real" threat, and also admits that Putin's "support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is unconscionable." However, the editorial fails to observe that Russian support for Assad serves Iranian interests in the Middle East and enables Tehran to supply Hezbollah, its proxy in Lebanon.

The editorial board says of Romney:

"His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender."

Personally, I think that Obama's open microphone gaffe displayed an inordinate level of naiveté, unbefitting a US president. Moreover, this gaffe, together with talk that the Supreme Court stands to strike down Obamacare this summer, could well jeopardize Obama's chances of reelection.

Indeed, there is reason why the editorial board of The Times is developing a case of the jitters.

Obama's Open Mike Chat With Medvedev: Yes, Mr. President, You're Scaring Me

And yet another Obama open microphone gaffe: Speaking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev about European missile defense, the US president requested patience until his reelection, when he would have more "flexibility." The conversation:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.

Flexibility with, i.e. readiness to make concessions to, Vladimir Putin? Yes, President Obama, you have me frightened. Have you forgotten that you are the president of a great nation and the leader of the free world?

This is the same Putin, who has opposed efforts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program and who has continued to arm Syria's Assad, as he slaughters those protesting his tyrannical rule. The same Putin who was just reelected as Russia's president by way of massive vote-rigging (see: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16180553).

Although Obama became president with a reputation as America's most liberal senator, I had hoped that daily encounters with cruel global realities had caused the man to mature and made him middle-of-the-road. Instead, we now learn that it's all been a bluff: Should he be reelected, he will effect an agenda that is not being shared with the American people.

Obama's secret second term agenda involving Israel? Notwithstanding Obama's current charm campaign, there is no doubt in my mind that Israel will be squeezed into unilateral concessions never before demanded by a US president.

Russia to Delay Shipment of S-300 Surface-to-Air Missiles to Iran

Interfax reports that Russia is indefinitely delaying shipment of advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran. Iran has been eagerly awaiting delivery of the missiles, which would have meaningfully bolstered its defenses against attack upon its nuclear installations. According to Interfax:

"Russia will deliver S-300 surface-to-air missiles systems to Iran after the technical flaws uncovered have been fixed, the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service's First Deputy Director Alexander Fomin has announced.

'The delay is due to technical problems. The systems will be delivered when these problems have been resolved,' Fomin told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday.

Fomin is leader of a Russian delegation to the Defexpo-India arms show.

No details were given on what kind of technical problems are involved, or how long it will take to fix them."

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=147429

Now you know why Netanyahu was smiling in his photographs with Putin and Medvedev (see prior blog entry). This is a meaningful coup for Netanyahu and a serious setback for Iran, still susceptible to attack from above and forced to rethink its negotiating position with the U.S. and its allies.

Peculiar how Obama never dreamed of obtaining this concession from Russia. Or is it because Obama's advisers had already reconciled themselves to a nuclear Iran . . .

Iran: Russia Holds the Key

U.S. President Obama met Russian President Medvedev in Singapore on Sunday at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum to discuss Iranian nuclear weapons development. Obama stated, "We are now running out of time." Medvedev said he hopes Iran will send its enriched uranium to Russia to be further processed into fuel, but if not, "other options remain on the table."

Meanwhile, Iran is protesting the delay in receiving the Russian S-300 system, capable of destroying both aircraft and missiles. According to an article entitled "West fears Iran may reverse-engineer S-300 system" in today's Tehran Times:

"MP Mohammad Karami-Rad has stated that the West is afraid that Iran may reverse-engineer the S-300 missile system. . . . Karami-Rad, who is also a member of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, said that certain Western countries are trying to scupper contracts signed by Tehran and Moscow, which should have been implemented six months ago.

. . . .

The Iranian chairman of the Iran-Russia Parliamentary Friendship Group stated that a delay in delivering the S-300 missiles would tarnish Russia’s image in Iran. . . . He stated that other countries will no longer trust Russia if it does not fulfill its commitments in regard to the contract for the S-300 system. Iran should not put all its eggs in one basket in its foreign policy by relying too much on Russia because Russia is not dependable, Sanaei added. Moscow should heed public opinion in Iran.

Political analyst and university professor Mahdi Motahharnia has said that Russia should not be indifferent to public opinion in Iran. . . . Motahharnia stated that public opinion in Iran has become sensitive to Russia’s policies on Iran, and more and more Iranians are beginning to believe that Russia is not honest in its dealings with Iran."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=207921

Synopsis of this doublespeak:

1. Sell it to us or we'll manufacture it ourselves.
2. If you don't sell it to us, Iranians won't like you.
3. If you don't sell it to us, no one in the region will trust you any longer.

Analysis of this doublespeak:

1. Iran will reverse engineer the S-300? Maybe in another decade or two.
2. Iranians will start to hate Russia? There are already chants of "Death to Russia" at Friday prayers in Tehran.
3. No one in the Middle East will trust Russia in the future? No one in the Middle East trusts anyone.

In short, without the S-300 umbrella to protect their nuclear weapons development facilities, Iran is worried sick.