By Jack Perry Whatsupic -- It's getting to be very difficult these days to open up the news and not see the bratty governments of the U.S. and Israel both whining about Iran. It really is pathetic and their lack of dignity speaks volumes about the "quality" of leadership within. The wailing and sniffling over Iran's peaceful nuclear program has been non-stop, of course. But now in the news is the boo-hoo-hooing over Russia lifting the ban on selling S-300 missile defense systems to Iran. S-300 Missiles
* * *
The way the news skews this in favor of U.S. and Israeli propaganda is to have headlines that say, "Russia Lifts Ban On Delivery Of S-300 Missiles To Iran". Like here. So, see, they title these articles just basically saying "Russia Is Selling MISSILES To IRAN!!!!" That's to get everyone freaked out and scared. When they think of "missiles", they think of nuclear weapons and InterContinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) and that's what U.S. and Israeli propaganda mills want them to think. Therefore, people will back any protest and sanctions against Iran (and Russia, too) as a result of this defensive weapons sale.
Let's state the FACTS and not the hysterical lies. The facts are that the S-300 is a defensive surface-to-air missile system. It's missiles can only be used to shoot down attacking aircraft or inbound ballistic missiles. Therefore, the only thing the U.S. has to fear from the S-300 is if they fly attacking aircraft into Iran or launch ballistic missiles to attack Iran. See what Israel and the U.S. are whining about now? They're whining because Iran wants to be able to defend itself against attack. Now why would they whine about that unless they wanted to be able to attack Iran without too many losses? Every country has the inherent right to self-defense. Every human being has the right to self-defense. Iran does not lose that right just because the U.S. and Israel "sez so". In fact, when you hear the threats the U.S. and Israel continually make against Iran, it is perfectly understandable why Iran would spend the money on a defensive missile system to protect themselves.
Let's pay a visit to our old friend History for a moment. What did the U.S. do during the Cold War when the threat of Soviet bombers attacking the U.S. was seen as possible? I'll tell you what we did. We built Nike surface-to-air missile bases all over the country to catch their inbound bombers. There was one of these bases in the hills where I grew up; one of several Nike bases in Southern California. By the way, many of these Nikes were armed with nuclear warheads, thinking that would take out inbound bomber formations more effectively. The East Coast had Nike SAMs, too, as well as a surface-to-air missile called Bomarc, also armed with a nuclear warhead. The whole United States was segmented by North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into regional Air Defense Sectors and Corridors and each Nike or Bomarc base was assigned sectors to defend. The Nike and Bomarc bases were dismantled when Soviet ICBMs made hollow the threat of their bombers, since the ICBMs couldn't be defended against. But, get a load of this. Those air defense sectors still exist and U.S. air defense is still a mission of the United States military. But fighter aircraft are what's used with one exception. The White House and Washington DC airspace are also protected by a surface-to-air defensive missile system called NASAMS. Let's discuss the mission of NASAMS for a moment.
The airspace over Washington DC is restricted airspace that unauthorized aircraft are forbidden from entering. This came into obviousness some years back right after 9/11 when a small private plane entered this airspace accidently and all the politicians went running for their fuehrerbunkers in panic. This resulted in the installation of NASAMS to defend the airspace over Washington DC and, specifically, the White House. If an aircraft enters this airspace and does not respond to radio warnings, yes, this aircraft can be shot down by NASAMS. That's why it's there. Therefore, why would it be at all surprising if Iran protects Tehran or any other city with defensive missiles or similar protocols?
Further along, the United States has wanted to install anti-ballistic missile defense systems in Eastern Europe to defend, supposedly, against attacks by "terrorists" and so on. Russia has vehemently protested this because those ABM systems are obviously there to target Russian ICBMs after launch. But the U.S. sits there and says, "Why is Russia opposed to our DEFENSIVE missile system?" Ok, then why are YOU, United States government, opposed to Iran having the SAME THING in, hel-LO!!!, their OWN COUNTRY? I say again, their OWN COUNTRY, to defend their own country and not play foolish games like the U.S. does in Eastern Europe. Israel also has a missile defense system called Iron Dome. Ok, Israel, so why are you whining now that Iran wants the same ability to defend themselves against air and missile attack?
The reality is, this is just another way for the U.S. and Israel to unjustly attack and criticize Iran. In the bargain, the U.S. also gets to attack it's other favourite enemy, Russia, and also Vladimir Putin who made the sale possible. So the U.S. spins it as "Everybody panic! Vladimir Putin is selling MISSILES to Iran!!!" Yeah, but what kind of missiles? Defensive missiles. And why should the U.S. or Israel worry about defensive missiles unless they plan on attacking Iran? But you know what? I just remembered something the U.S. did with a surface-to-air missile back in 1988. Our old friend History will, again, reveal U.S. hypocrisy.
In 1988, a U.S. Navy warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down an Iranian airliner (Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 civilian airliner) over the Persian Gulf with a surface-to-air missile. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path from Tehran to Dubai. It is number eight on the list of the world's deadliest aviation disasters. This shoot-down killed 290 innocent people, including 66 children. This Iranian airliner was identifying itself as a harmless civilian airliner using what's called IFF "squawk" signals and yet the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes ridiculously claimed they'd identified this airliner as a much smaller fighter aircraft. Excuse me, but that's like seeing a tractor-trailer truck and identifying it as a motorcycle. This warship's captain tried to convince us that he thought he was under attack by a single Iranian F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft. Yeah, sure, when you're going to attack a heavily-armed warship, just send one plane. Right. However, a Pentagon report on this found the captain and crew of the USS Vincennes made several wrong claims (in other words, lied) about the shoot-down, yet absolved them anyway.
The U.S. has never admitted culpability or liability for this mass murder and has, to this day, never apologized for it. In fact, George H. W. Bush, the vice president of the United States at the time, practically boasted of the incident during a presidential campaign function a month after the mass murder: "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Wow, so even when the U.S. gets caught red-handed mass murdering civilians, it won't apologize no matter what the facts are?! The U.S. finally quietly paid $62 million dollars to the victims' families in 1996, some eight years later. But that's only because Iran took the case to the International Court of Justice and the U.S. just wanted it to go away. By the way, the captain of the USS Vincennes was given a medal for the time period of service that included his role in the mass murder of 290 innocent people. He not only got away with mass murder, he got an award for it. Now, Iran has never "accidently" or purposely shot down a civilian airliner with a surface-to-air missile. So if there's anyone who is a responsible owner of defensive missiles, it is Iran, and not the United States.
Oh, and by the way, Israel shot down a civilian airliner themselves, except they used fighter planes. In 1973, Israeli F-4 Phantoms shot down a Libyan Airlines 727 airliner with 113 people on board. The airliner had become lost due to equipment failure and bad weather. Evidently, the Israeli solution to "help" was to shoot them down. And, again, Iran has never done this to a civilian airliner. They were at war with Iraq for eight years and never made this kind of mistake as the U.S. and Israel both made. Mistakes they made with airliners from countries they were not even at war with, also. Again, when it comes to air defense, I think Iran has a much safer approach. They don't shoot first and ask questions later.
Again, and it cannot be said often enough, the S-300 missile system Iran wants to buy is a defensive weapon system. It cannot be used for anything other than self-defense. The Iranian government has an obligation and a duty to protect its citizens. This missile defense system is used to defend the innocent civilians of cities from being killed in air attacks. Evidently, the U.S. and Israel want Iran to be vulnerable to an air attack. Gee, why is that? Because they want to attack Iran. So they dishonestly run around whining that Iran is buying "missiles" and don't tell the whole story. Those are self-defense missiles and every human being has the human right of self-defense. Basically, what Iran is buying is a bulletproof vest for a city. Why should anyone have a problem with that? Iran has demonstrated they are more than responsible with surface-to-air missiles. The U.S. certainly hasn't and Iran knows that better than anyone. So, really, enough whining already. Iran has the right to self-defense like any other nation. Let me just make this final point. The same American politicians complaining about Iran buying these defensive missiles will also tell you that American citizens have the right to own firearms for self-defense. What's more, many American states have laws that permit the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens for self-defense. Those American politicians support those laws. But you don't get to say that and then say that Iran doesn't have that exact same right to own weapons for self-defense and weapons that are strictly for self-defense on top of that. You don't get to say that Iran doesn't have the right to self-defense. Iranians expect their government to protect them. That's one reason they pay taxes. So if Americans understand the need for one person to be able to carry a weapon for self-defense, why is it so threatening for a country to have a weapon that defends them from being attacked? Those missiles are not offensive weapons, they are defensive weapons. There's a difference. And it's high time the U.S. stopped being so hypocritical in claiming not to know the difference between the two. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, the Whatsupic. By Jack Perry Jack Perry is a freelance journalist who lives with his wife in the Four Corners region of the Southwest United States.He also writes fiction, is a traditional archer, an arrowmaker, and a woodcarver. He spends his time writing, shooting his longbows, making arrows, and finding himself only mildly amused by the darkly zany antics of the United States government. ------ ...