A Deafening Stupidity.

So, John Bolton concludes today that:

Jerusalem (AFP) - US National Security Advisor John Bolton on Tuesday described as "deafening" Iran's apparent silence on an offer to negotiate with Washington. "The president has held the door open to real negotiations," Bolton told journalists in Jerusalem. "In response, Iran's silence has been deafening," he added. Bolton is in Jerusalem for what Israel described as unprecedented talks with his Russian and Israeli counterparts, along with meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Speaking alongside the US advisor, Netanyahu said there was "a wider basis for cooperation between the three of us than many believe." Bolton's comments come a day after the United States imposed sanctions on top officials of Israel's arch foe Iran.

Alrighty then! Iran doesn't want to talk. And why should she? Make no mistake, I am no fan of Ayatollah's rule in Iran nor am I an automatic Iran's supporter merely on the merit that Iran is in direct and stiff opposition to a bunch of Israeli stooges in Trump's Administration. Iran has her own issues and, in general, there is nothing black and white about that nation. Current United States, however, can easily be defined in a very contrast black and white manner: there are people who serve Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies, and there are people who do not. The former, not the latter, are in power and because of that there is no point of talking to them. These are precisely people who helped to form a correct, I might add, global opinion that the United States is not agreement-capable side, so, why waste time? Especially negotiating anything with such lunatics as Bolton, Pompeo or, in the end, Trump himself. 

As Phil Giraldi astutely observes today:

No one in the White House has ever made the effort to explain exactly how Iran threatens the United States, apart from repeated offhand comments about having to protect Israel or “send a message.” Urged on by Israel and Saudi Arabia, the United States has been playing the unwitting fool in its willingness to take the lead in denying Iran any legitimate role in the Middle East region. After pulling out of the JCPOA, the U.S. re-instituted punitive sanctions and then punished other countries for dealing with Iran or abiding by the JCPOA agreement. The Administration, including the president, boasted how the severe sanctions would cause the Iranian economy to collapse. Trump has also several times threatened to completely destroy Iran. As the punishment being meted out has increased, the Administration has also heated up its own rhetoric, claiming that it was Iran and not the U.S. that had become more aggressive and threatening.

Indeed, who, in this current administration, can make a case for a different course with Iran? Tucker Carlson and Dunford, who allegedly were the ones who convinced Trump not to attack Iran after the drone shooting down? Possible, of course, without all this BS drama about halting strikes in the last minute--a pathetic spectacle for the consumption of unsophisticated public. But, let's face the facts. Trump admired Bolton BEFORE even running for office, he wanted to exit JCPOA because it was Obama's "deal" and because Trump cannot not despise Iran, having assembled the Administration, which has loyalties to anyone and anything but the United States and her people. In the end, I am with Larison's definition of Trump as militarist. Indeed, if getting his second term, Trump will attack Iran, not only because he is surrounded by the cabal of hand-picked war-mongers and Israeli-firsters, but because he himself wants this. I would say that he wants it badly--he needs to realize himself as a big global shot--a first trait of a pathological narcissist, which Trump, by universal consensus is. Warfare is the shortest way to get there: win the war and voila'--the laurels of Caesar are at hand. There is, of course, one teeny-weeny problem with that--Iran is ready to fight back. 

Obviously purely military (technological, tactical and operational) realities of this possible war are beyond the grasp of Trump, Bolton, Pompeo or any other war-monger in D.C. But, if to follow a chilling revelation from Larry Wilkerson that Bolton and Pompeo, two utterly unqualified people, view and DO treat Pentagon as their own fiefdom, there is very little doubt that eventually any voice of reason, professionalism and caution will be suppressed there. The preparation for the war with Iran will continue. Iran knows this, hence the "deafening silence". Plus, people tend to not talk to cads and louts such as Bolton or Pompeo (or Trump) out of respect for themselves. Iran respects herself and, as Wilkerson correctly points out, it is normal for civilization with millennia long history and glorious antiquity such as Persia. A bit of respect would have gone a long way but this is a trait completely absent from current US policy and decision makers. A thin veneer of "culture" of these people is no thicker than the papers which their degrees in useless subjects are printed on.

So, neither Trump nor Bolton, nor anyone else in D.C., should expect anything but deafening silence in response. Meanwhile, NATO (ahem, puppets) produces this:

On Tuesday, NATO urged Russia to destroy a new missile to save a treaty that keeps land-based nuclear warheads out of Europe or face a more determined alliance response in the region. 

Apart from obvious and traditional lies of placing responsibility for the death of INF treaty on Russia--it was United States which unilaterally quit this, and other, treaties--Russian Foreign Ministry yesterday warned that if NATO wants another Caribbean Crisis it will get it. Russians are also aware of US inevitably abrogating START, because nuclear weapons are the only weapons the United States has at her disposal to remain relevant. Meanwhile, Russia simply doesn't look back and news on S-500 going into IOC and serial production should give some food for thought to those who still believe that they can fight Russia and survive. There are very few known facts about S-500 apart from well-publicized events such as S-500 hitting aerodynamic targets at unprecedented ranges of 300 miles and the ability to intercept hypersonic targets. RT, though, makes mistake when writes this:

The system is expected to engage intermediate-range cruise and ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles with speeds of up to Mach 5 and intercontinental ballistic missiles during terminal phase. With new interceptors reportedly capable of reaching low earth orbit, the system may double as an anti-satellite weapon and could intercept ICBMs mid-course, according to some reports.

S-500 can not intercept " hypersonic missiles with speeds of up to Mach 5" for a simple reason that anything "up to Mach 5" is NOT hypersonic by definition. Any targets with up to Mach 5 are standard and not hardest targets for S-300PMU2 or S-400. S-500 from the onset was developed as anti-hypersonic complex and that means that it can intercept hypersonic maneuvering targets (not to me mistaken with ballistics which are "hypersonic" by definition), that is greater than Mach 5 velocity, within atmosphere and from the inception was designed as the response to the American efforts within the framework of Prompt Global Strike (PGS) program. I do not want to speculate what is the upper velocity limit for S-500, but judging by the envelope PGS vehicles were trying to push it was around Mach 8-10, if one considers failed and abandoned Mach 20 tests for HTV vehicles. So, make your own conclusion what targets will S-500 intercept. One thing is certain--S-500 is a new word in air-space defense and that changes even further a balance of power globally, not to mention at Russia's borders with NATO, which, somehow, despite "I cross my heart and hope to die" promises to Russia not to expand to Russia's borders did exactly that. Nobody speaks seriously to people who have no honor. Especially when their backs are against the wall and they know they are losing big, if not already. 

UPDATE: Ohh, goody. 

President Donald Trump threatened Tuesday to use "overwhelming force" against Iran if it attacks U.S. assets or personnel. "Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration," Trump wrote on Twitter.

Will somebody explain to DJT that between bellicose proclamations and actually following through with them there is an abyss. Of course, there are also serious groups of behavioral psychologists who consult serious governments, evidently not US government, and who can easily lay it out that all this hot air Trump produces is a direct, unequivocal proof of a weakness. Unless, of course, DJT wants to use nuclear weapons on Iran, as his Israeli handler Sheldon Adelson suggested before. Yes, nuking Iran is the use of "great and overwhelming force", it will be the same force which will turn US into a rogue state sponsor of nuclear terrorism and will ensure that Israel will face an existential crisis. Other than that, I think militarily Iran is ready to face anything US is going to throw at her.