Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon Tuesday charged that Russia’s lifting a five-year ban on the sale of critical S-300 anti-missile systems is a “direct result of the framework agreement reached in Lausanne, but the United States is ignoring any connection.
Ya’alon’s “analysis” was overly obvious. Anyone who can add 1 and 1 and come up with 2 already has connected the dots between the temporary agreement with Iran on its nuclear program and Russia’s announcement Monday to allow the sale of one of the most advance anti-missile systems in the world.
Iran’s deployment of the S-300 systems would make an aerial attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear sites very improbable.
Voice of America quoted Jane’s Terrorism and Security Monitor editor Jeremy Binnie as saying:
The Iranians desperately want a new long-range [surface-to-air missile] system to form the centerpiece of an integrated air defense network that will deter anyone who might want to enter its airspace. I think it would be fair to say it [the S-300] would complicate a strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
Ya’alon raised the obvious point that if Russia lifted the ban on the sale of the S-300 two weeks after the temporary deal was reached between P5+1 and Iran, what will happen when the United States lifts sanctions?
[Iran] continues to arm itself, and arm others, which we have been warning about even before the details [of the deal] were concluded. It was clear, even then, that sanctions will be lifted, and that of course this will influence and strengthen the Iranian economy.
The outgoing defense minister also pointed out that the deal did not even mention Hezbollah, Iran’s military proxy in Lebanon and which military sources lately have warned is over-loaded with heavy-duty missiles for an attack on Israel.
The reaction of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Russian sale to Iran is most curious.
His spokeswoman Marie Harf said, “We think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon, that this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them.”
She offered an amazing analysis that disconnects Ya’alon’s dots:
We think given Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, in places like Yemen or Syria or Lebanon, that this isn’t the time to be selling these kinds of systems to them, [but] we don’t think this will have an impact on unity in terms of inside the negotiating room.
Harf’s incredible denial continues the Obama administration’s policy that makes a deal with Iran an end it itself and not a means to stop Tehran for acquiring a nuclear bomb.
Adding 1 and 1 and getting 2 is simple, but adding another 1 and getting 3 may be too complicated for the White House, which only said it is “concerned” over the sale of the S-300 anti-missile systems.
The first “1” is that Iran can retain its nuclear infrastructure and continue to enrich low-grade uranium while simply promising it will open its sites for inspections. There are no provisions in the deal against Iran’s operating a secret nuclear site outside the country, such as in North Korea. Even if Iran balks at open inspections, it would take months before the West can get its act together and agree to clamp sanctions on Iran, especially since Russia is one of the P5+1 countries.
The second “1” is Hezbollah’s huge army and missile stockpile, along with Iran’s filling up the money pipeline to Hamas in Gaza, where the terrorist organization is busy re-building terror tunnels.
The third “1” is the S-300 systems.
Once Israel cannot penetrate Iran’s air defense systems, Tehran has nothing to fear when it comes to making a nuclear weapon.