Putin attacks Iran

Turn off the news for an hour, and whoopsie, you missed another bout of Putin's aggression!

Sure, those missiles were meant for Syria...

But we all know, don't we, after being told and told and told again about Putin's plans for world domination by our mainstream news providers, that nothing Putin says is ever true.

Whereas every pronouncement from the White House or the Pentagon or the 101 bag-licking beltway think-tanks is the bona-fide gospel truth!

So what's Putin really up to here?

Obviously, with his recent invasion of Syria and last year's conquest of Ukraine already feathers in his cap, he's going after Iran next!

What I don't understand is why this would concern the Nations of Virtue? After all, we've been fantasizing about dropping missiles on Iran for decades!

So, even if those Russian missiles landing in Iran were nothing more than an accident, it's an accident that should be roundly applauded by the West.

Even if those stray missiles managed to miss any wedding parties out there in the Iranian boonies.

UK's Guardian Newspaper reporting Russian troops in Syria

This story has been on the Guardian's website all day. It's entirely consistent with a story floating around yesterday about Russian troops having secured Syrian chemical assets. The advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries that the Guardian claims are being run by Russian "advisers" would presumably be stationed in the same vicinity as the air bases that hold the chemical stockpiles.

There was a flurry of stories back in March of this year claiming that Russian troops were on the ground in Syria, stories that faded away. That of course has nothing much to do with whether the stories are true or not.

One can safely assume that Russia's intervention was on the agenda when Putin and Netanyahu had a face-to-face meeting in June. No one has a keener interest in where Assad's chemical weapons end up than Israel does. At the same time, it would be seen as an intolerable escalation if the Israelis were to act on the matter unilaterally.

Perhaps what we're seeing is a one-hand-washes-the-other symbiosis between Putin and the IDF that seeks to neutralize US influence in the Syrian conflict. If that is the case it would imply that senior elements within the Israeli security establishment have at least for the time being prevailed upon their political masters to put the Iran attack on the back burner.

About those Syrian Scuds

They are in the news again today. The "desperate" Assad regime "may" have unleashed up to six Scud missiles against the al-Qaeda rebels.

Here's analyst Mark Perry in an interview from Al Jazeera a few days ago discussing Assad's use of the missiles. Note that while Perry refers to the use of Scuds as a "profound escalation" his only reference point is reports in the NYT.

Mark Perry is not a reflexive Arab hater like too many of the "experts" we see on the evening news. In fact, he was once an adviser to Yasser himself. He knows his stuff, but he doesn't actually know anything about Assad's use of Scuds.

And here's Joshua Landis' take on the Syrian Scuds. Like Perry he is well regarded and well connected in the Middle East. Yet all his insights into Assad's use of Scuds seem to come from the New York Times.

All of the Times' info about Assad's Scuds seem to come from unnamed sources in the State Department.

Which is not to say they're not true, but one should certainly not assume that they are.

The bigger question should be why is the State Department promoting this story? If they intend to not support the rebels any more than they already have, what is the point of publicizing this "profound escalation?"

The think tank here at Falling Downs believes that in the absence of verification from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and in-country
sources, the Syrian Scuds story is most likely bogus.

So why is the State Department busy spreading a bogus story?

At this point it is imperative that the US keep its options open. Boots on the ground will mean going head to head with the very rebels that America has winked and nodded into the country. Leaving al Qaeda in charge of Syria is a non-starter both in Washington and in Israel.

It cannot be allowed to happen.

These "last days of a desperate dictator" stories are meant to prepare the public for something the public has absolutely no appetite for.

Another US war in the Muslim world.

Washington Post goes ballistic over imaginary Scuds

Well, it's not the Scuds that have them in a flap; it's Obama's lack of reaction.

The so-far totally unverified reports about Assad's use of Scud missiles against "his own people" have caused huge umbrage at the WP editorial board.

NATO meanwhile has wasted no time in citing the imaginary Scuds as the reason for delivering Patriot batteries to Turkey, even though that was a decision taken a good month before the Scud story surfaced.

Here is the take that The View From Falling Downs think tank has on the issue, and by now you surely realize that this is a think tank that runs well ahead of the pack.

Those Patriots are not about the Scuds, they're about the impending war on Iran.