Middle East Defence & Security

[Big_Zucchini]

Doubt it. It is Assad which needs to further ingratiate himself with Russia. He needs Russia. By continuing to provide Assad with diplomatic and other kinds of support; Russia is already providing more than enough assurance.

It's not a relationship where Assad has to beg Russia for sponsorship. There are several candidates, and since it's a win-win for any potential pair, Russia is essentially in a competition with others. Right now Iran is losing that competition, but there is no shortage of potential investors in Syria's quest to rebuild.
So both sides need to maintain these relations.

Russia has been on the sidelines in the Israeli-Iranian war, and Assad is not too happy about it. On the landscape, these joint patrols are a rather minor change, but they could be very important to Assad, which either for himself, or to sell to Syrians the idea, needs to see increased Russian committment.

There is also the added value of espionage. Despite the understandings and deconfliction mechanisms, it is no secret that Russia and Israel are spying on each other. However, Russia has the inherent advantage of bringing into the region only what it chooses.

 

[STURM]

It's not a relationship where Assad has to beg Russia for sponsorship.

It's a relationship where Russia was the only country willing and able to pour in the resources needed to keep Assad in power and defeat his enemies. There was nobody else. Iran played a big part but ultimately only Russia could provide the decisive edge and also to provide the needed and financial support,,,,

Right now Iran is losing that competition

No it isn't; for the simple reason that the role Iran sees itself as playing in Syria differs to a large extent to what others see themselves as playing. Iran accomplished it's major goalsl; keeping Assad in power; defeating IS and maintaining the long strategic relationship it has enjoyed with Syria [going back to the 1980's when practically everyone was supporting Saddam but Syria was the only Arab country supporting Iran]. Iran deploying troops to Iraq to help stem the tide of IS also has to be seen in the light of Iran/Syria relations as a IS controlled Iraq would have a major disaster of Iran and also would have had a detrimental impact on Syria.

My guess is that in the coming years we'll see a rapprochement between Syria and the Gulf States [the UAE has already reopened its embassy in Damascus]; it'll be the Gulf States pouring in money for reconstruction and to prop up the Syrian economy.

 

[STURM]

Russia has been on the sidelines in the Israeli-Iranian war, and Assad is not too happy about it.

Assad fully understands that the Russians are there because it's in their interests and that Syria getting into open conflict with Israel due to involvement with Iran is contrary to Russian interests. The Russians have made it absolutely clear that it wants little to no involvement in what Syria does with Iran. On the part of the Israelis they also know there a certain ''red lines'' [to use a cliche] which can't be crossed; hitting Assad because of factors relate to Iran is tolerated by Russia but not certain other things.

it is no secret that Russia and Israel are spying on each other.

Indeed but both are also cooperating with each other and maintain lines of communication on Syria to avoid friction.

It would be very surprising if Russia and Israel were not spying on each other; given that even NATO allies spy on each other; as do countries like Israel which had Pollard in the U.S. and even Britain which in the past had to resort to certain means to obtain certain intel which was not shared with it by the U.S.

 

[Feanor]

It's a relationship where Russia was the only country willing and able to pour in the resources needed to keep Assad in power and defeat his enemies. There was nobody else. Iran played a big part but ultimately only Russia could provide the decisive edge and also to provide the needed and financial support,,,,

This is fundamentally untrue. Iran did a lot of heavy lifting in the war. Iranian troops fought on the front line, while Russia preferred to limit itself to air strikes, arty, and special ops. Iran got quality Hezbollah formations involved, and Iranian-supported Iraqi militias saved Damascus. Russia played a key role, but so did Iran. I suspect Iran got Russia involved rather then the other way around.

 

[STURM]

This is fundamentally untrue..

I was not suggesting Iranian help was insignificant; far from it. Iran did a lot; in Syria and in Iraq' I'm very aware of that. For years I've pointed out in DefenceTalk that Iranian ''boots on the ground'' in Syria and Iraq played a huge role in stemming the tide of IS; way before Western airpower got involved. Iran had no choice but to get involved in Syria; not doing so would have been highly detrimental to its interests as Syria is a key ally and what happened in Syria was part of the Cold War being waged between Iran and the Gulf Arab states for influence in the region and beyond. Just like how events in Iraq with IS was linked with and would effect Syria; what happened in Syria would also have a direct bearing on Iraq; a country next to Iran; one with a Shia majority and one to many of Shiasm's religious sites.

The point I was making is that irrespective of the significant help Iran provided to Assad; it is only Russia which is able to provide him with certain types of assistance; namely political; as well as certain types of weaponry which Iran isn't able to.

Iran got quality Hezbollah formations involved, and Iranian-supported Iraqi militias saved Damascus. Russia played a key role, but so did Iran. I suspect Iran got Russia involved rather then the other way around.

When the Iraqi regular army broke and ran; it was mostly Iranian troops; Hezbollah and Iraqi Shia paramilitary troops which prevented IS from continuing its advance. As Robert Fisk's mentions in one of his several articles on his time in Syria; at a later stage in the war when some Syrian units gained the needed skills and experience; they saw themselves as more effective compared to some Iranian units which arrived in Syria with little or no experience.

I suspect Iran got Russia involved rather then the other way around.

Maybe but I personally doubt it. Syria was the only ''ally'' Russia had in a region long dominated by the West and helping defeat IS was in line with longstanding Russian fears of Wahhabist/jihadist ideology eventually making its way to the Caucasus. Iran and Russia shared similar aims but also had slightly different reasons for getting involved.

 

[STURM]

Very interesting talk about a new book on Russia and Syria. One of the speakers is Lester Grau. The authors mentions ,any interesting points including how from the very onset the Russians ensured they wouldn't get bogged down by keeping their expeditionary force small with limited resources and relied on other actors, namely Iran, to do a lot of the heavy fighting. She points out that the intervention was driven by various factors but the main one was Putin's desire to push back the U.'s. global liberal order. By its intervention and its permanent presence in Syria; Russia has also become another player in the Middle East; one which can't be ignored by the West which has long dominated the region.

Putin's War in Syria

"Skillfully lays out Mr. Putin's approach to the Middle East." Wall Street Journal"Detailed and fascinating." Diplomatic Courier Putin inter…

www.bloomsbury.com

 

[STURM]

Another couple of videos.

 

[STURM]

Syria ‘intercepts barrage of Israeli missiles’ targeting Damascus

Israeli air raids reportedly targeted military outpost, weapons depot used by Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement.

www.aljazeera.com

Yet another report of an Israeli attack and Syrian air defence managing to intercept some missiles. We've become used t such reports and have long taken for granted that such reports are purely the work of Syrian propagandists but is this really true? It it inconceivable that the Syrians might actually be capable of shooting down some missiles or are they actually 'intercepting' decoys? Also; given that the Israelis have launched multiple attacks on what they claim are Iranian/Hezbollah targets; how accurate are these strikes in actually destroying supplies and killing people? By now Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will have a pretty good idea as to what to expect and will take certain precautions such as sending out decoys, fake transmissions, etc.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Yet another report of an Israeli attack and Syrian air defence managing to intercept some missiles. We've become used t such reports and have long taken for granted that such reports are purely the work of Syrian propagandists but is this really true? It it inconceivable that the Syrians might actually be capable of shooting down some missiles or are they actually 'intercepting' decoys?

The only dependable sources on numbers are western, so in this case it would be Israel, which does not publish any statistics that could show interception rates.
Syria uses air defenses that are frankly obsolete. Not very far from what they had in 1982. In those 40 years, Israel's EW systems which were enough to outright destroy a significant portion of Syria's air defenses, IIRC a whopping 19 batteries and close to a hundred fighters downed, have improved significantly.

Israel also had no issue whatsoever destroying scores of Syrian batteries in recent years whenever the SAA was attempting to fire on aircraft.

Considering today's munitions are only becoming smaller and faster, and sometimes themselves coupled with independent EW, and accompanied by fighters that can activate powerful, highly directional EW from standoff distances, Syria's ability to down munitions has only diminished from the near zero it had decades ago.

The only exception would be the Pantsir, but being a low tier system, it does not have the capacity to carry a strong radio suit that would protect it from hostile EW that could be tailored to it. I don't know if Pantsir uses AESA, which is a technology that enables advanced Low Probability of Intercept techniques, but it is very unlikely it has it, especially in the variant given to Syria. It is said to be PESA online.
Its low numbers and lack of air coverage prevent it from being employed effectively.

Couple all that with poor Syrian training and low proficiency and you get an army that mostly shoots missiles into the sky as if they were ballistic missiles (not once they've actually landed very far away after flying a ballistic trajectory).

This campaign is expensive, so I can only assume the IAF would start plucking air defenses if they could down munitions.

Also; given that the Israelis have launched multiple attacks on what they claim are Iranian/Hezbollah targets; how accurate are these strikes in actually destroying supplies and killing people? By now Syria, Iran and Hezbollah will have a pretty good idea as to what to expect and will take certain precautions such as sending out decoys, fake transmissions, etc.

As accurate as the intel, which should be accurate enough to pinpoint a target. The IAF has many target discrimination tools at its disposal, so the question should not be how accurate they are with the targets they find, but how many they find and how many they miss.

It's also wrong to assume killing people is an objective, or even anything but a negative outcome. One of the best ways to gauge the accuracy and efficiency of such campaigns is by how killing-free they are.
Any dead Hezbollah/IRGC/SAA member is an embarassment to these parties and therefore a likely escalation, which none wants.

Both Israel and Iran have exhibited the desire and ability to keep things below the radar to avoid escalations that derive from public reaction.

 

[STURM]

It's also wrong to assume killing people is an objective, or even anything but a negative outcome. One of the best ways to gauge the accuracy and efficiency of such campaigns is by how killing-free they are.

It's also wrong to assume that killing people is not an objective. In addition to destroying material; killing hard to replace experienced intel and other people is also beneficial. To me it remains to be seen how effective these strikes are in actually playing a part in deterring or disrupting Iranian/Hezbollah operations.

One of the best ways to gauge the accuracy and efficiency of such campaigns is by how killing-free they are.

Maybe but to me another way is to also see whether those being targeted keep up the pace which what they're doing. Despite multiple Israeli attacks which are 'precise' and benefit from good intel the fact remains that Iran/Hezbollah are still doing what they've long been doing.

The only exception would be the Pantsir, but being a low tier system

Which is a great system and would have whatever limitations mitigated if operated as it was intended; as part of a layered and networked AD environment.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

It's also wrong to assume that killing people is not an objective. In addition to destroying material; killing hard to replace experienced intel and other people is also beneficial. To me it remains to be seen how effective these strikes are in actually playing a part in deterring or disrupting Iranian/Hezbollah operations.

This advantage is far outweighed by the disadvantage of escalation.

There are a few ways to look at it. First, by delaying a war, reducing tensions, and striking at strategic targets, this manpower is very likely to go un-utilized before it is withdrawn.

Experience is also very easy to gain. In battles, the experience gained flows throughout the organization as lessons learned, so killing militants won't negate that. What it will negate is the training and personal experience they get, but Hezbollah routinely sends militants to warzones to accumulate experience, and uses that experience to extensively train new recruits, which are quite effective.

Furthermore a few men killed here and there, especially when it's usually civilian contractors affiliated with Hezbollah and Iran and not actual elite fighters, are hardly going to make a dent. They have more than enough well trained manpower to spare.

Thinking larger, we can also strike their underground production facilities and storage facilities, but this would kill tens of people at a time, and since it's in Lebanon it would be another reason to escalate. But we don't do it.


Regardless of anyone's opinion on what should be done, the IDF has been fairly vocal about this - casualty-free strikes are a clear operational goal.

Maybe but to me another way is to also see whether those being targeted keep up the pace which what they're doing. Despite multiple Israeli attacks which are 'precise' and benefit from good intel the fact remains that Iran/Hezbollah are still doing what they've long been doing

That's the principle of boots on the ground. When fought with only an air force or a navy, an armed force can only do so much. Physical presence is needed.
The IDF does not pretend it castrates Hezbollah capability, nor does it really attempt to.
It severely delays Hezbollah and Iranian efforts and forces them into less efficient, more expensive ways of producing their weapons.

Even getting them to 50% speed, even if they're still going forward, is worthwhile.

Which is a great system and would have whatever limitations mitigated if operated as it was intended; as part of a layered and networked AD environment.

Unlike the west, eastern nations work decentralized, and this severely limits the capabilities of AD at the benefit of keeping them independent and safe from soft compromise.
Naturally AD also needs an aerial element at least, to work properly. So they're losing on both ends here.

 

[STURM]

it's usually civilian contractors affiliated with Hezbollah and Iran and not actual elite fighters, are hardly going to make a dent. They have more than enough well trained manpower to spare.

You know for a fact it's mostly ''civilian contractors''? As for ''trained manpower'' they only have so much and if every Israeli strike kills or badly injures trained and experienced intel people; in the long run its takes a huge toll/

Unlike the west, eastern nations work decentralized

The 'east' is a big place and it depends on who you're referring to. Pantsir is a great system and the fact that it has been targeted with apparent ease in Libya and Syria doesn't necessarily indicate it's a '' low tier system''; merely that [like a lot of Soviet/Russian gear] it's not being deployed in the manner it was intended to; either because the end user does not have the resources for the other enablers or does not see the need to.

Thinking larger, we can also strike their underground production facilities and storage facilities, but this would kill tens of people at a time

Then it should be done if it actually led to something decisive and actually dents their ability to continue doing what their doing; then it's well worth the effort. The alternative is to carry out launching strike after strike; year after year. Also; since when has the IDF been squeamish about causing large casualties? No doubt you'll point out that the IDF takes great pain in avoiding unnecessary casualties and tries to always be accurate/precise but the numbers in quite a number of strikes; in quite a number of places over the years say otherwise.

It severely delays Hezbollah and Iranian efforts and forces them into less efficient, more expensive ways of producing their weapons.

That may be the intended objective but whether it's actually happening is the profound question .... Thus my original question : how effective are these strikes and are they actually destroying what they're intended to? Footage from a UAS or from a missile will no doubt show the target being hit and perhaps secondary explosions but how effective are the majority of these strikes? Alas we have no clear or firm answer.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Unexpected fruits of the Lebanese crisis:

Nasrallah: If Israel attacks Iran, Hezbollah won’t necessarily join fight

Lebanese terror chief claims Israel and US fear war with Islamic Republic, warns of 'a very intense and harsh' Iranian response in case of Israeli attack

www.timesofisrael.com

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Arie Egozi (more sensationalist than factual usually) talks about the connection between Israel-Syria-Iran dynamics and Russia-Ukraine-west dynamics.

How the Ukraine situation could impact Israel's strategies for Syria and Iran - Breaking Defense

Israel relies on good relations with Russia to enable operations in Syria. What happens if Russia invades Ukraine, though?

breakingdefense.com

Previously I briefly talked about how a war in Ukraine could go without an Israeli assistance to Ukraine, and already some transfers of Israeli weapons were denied, out of fear Russia would sell strategic weapons and technology to Iran, that would hinder Israel's ability to use a military option against the nuclear program. Already we see some deterrence on Israel's side.

Egozi talks about Russia shutting down operations over Syria, which I doubt it has the authority and ability to do (Israel-Russia deterrence is mutual, not one sided), and about it having implications on the Iran nuke deal.

Already we see media talking about some return to the JCPOA, and not a new deal that would solve the previous deal-breaking issues, among which were the facts that a richer Iran was better positioned to destabilize the region and prevent its enemies from investing in a military option vs nukes, was able to invest more in shortening the nuclear breakout period, and invest more in restructuring its nuclear facilities vs western sabotage projects.

What contributes to a possibility like this is the Russia-Ukraine situation, that may lead to a rushed deal due to both lack of focus and desire for a political victory after a series of regional disasters such as the rise of the Taliban.

 

[ngatimozart]

At the present point in time I think a lot of people are consulting the tea leaves, goats and sheep entrails to try and see the future WRT Putin and the Ukraine. I have read the entrails of 2 sheep 2 politicians and a goat. I had real trouble find 2 politicians with guts so had to substitute with a couple of rats. Still didn't work and am none the wiser apart from the fact that my hypothesis about politicians with guts or the lack thereof appears to be confirmed. When i consulted the tea leaves they did tell me to drink more rum and have a steak pie.

I am wondering if all Putin's public display around the Ukrainian borders is maskirovka. If it is so, then what is his real target? One or all of the three Baltic States? But they are NATO members and that would bring a power of hurt down upon his head. There is definitely something going on and he's got all of his Slava class cruisers either in the Med or heading there. They are a lot of firepower and CVN killers.

 

[STURM]

out of fear Russia would sell strategic weapons and technology to Iran, that would hinder Israel's ability to use a military option against the nuclear program.

In your view what strategic weapons could Russia sell/provide to Iran that would be of major concern for Israel.

Personally I.doubt this is a possibility as it carries too much political risk and baggage for Russia. If indeed things reach a point where Russia intends on taking certain steps in retaliation for Israel providing arms to the Ukraine, the Russians might have less visible and more deniable means of doing so rather than weapons transfers.

among which were the facts that a richer Iran was better positioned to destabilize the region

Sanctions have had a devastating effect on the Iranian economy which wasn't in a good place to begin with. They however have not led to the Iranians capitulating or to affected Iranian.citizens demonstrating in mass. Many Iranians are not fond of their government but nonetheless are united in standing up to what they see are Western double standards and hypocrisy towards Iran.

A point be made that its not a richer but weaker Iran which might take certain steps to protect its interests and to retaliate against its enemies in a way it wouldn't has it been in better economic shape. An Iran which was in better economic shape and didn't feel so isolated would be less insecure and desperate and would be less likely to undertake certain types of actions which carry a high degree of risk.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

In your view what strategic weapons could Russia sell/provide to Iran that would be of major concern for Israel.

Cruise missiles, radars, ballistic missiles of all sorts and ICBM tech, air defenses of all tiers, fighter aircraft, AEW aircraft.

Personally I.doubt this is a possibility as it carries too much political risk and baggage for Russia. If indeed things reach a point where Russia intends on taking certain steps in retaliation for Israel providing arms to the Ukraine, the Russians might have less visible and more deniable means of doing so rather than weapons transfers

A covert electronic war between Israel and Russia has been ongoing for years. Good part of why Russia has so many air defense, EW, and SIGINT assets in Syria. It's also no secret Russian knowledge trickles down to Iran and Syria later on.
But a new deal would relax sanctions on Iran, including some defense ones, and will undoubtedly allow it to again acquire foreign systems like the S-300 air defenses it acquired around 2016.

Sanctions have had a devastating effect on the Iranian economy which wasn't in a good place to begin with. They however have not led to the Iranians capitulating or to affected Iranian.citizens demonstrating in mass. Many Iranians are not fond of their government but nonetheless are united in standing up to what they see are Western double standards and hypocrisy towards Iran.

That's because we don't see it in the news, because today's dictatorships know how to cut off the internet for everyone, leading to a media blackout as well. The last protests claimed the lives of 1,500 citizens. I wouldn't call that a small protest.
But such numbers, when accessible to all Iranians later on, are terrifying and highly demoralizing.

A point be made that its not a richer but weaker Iran which might take certain steps to protect its interests and to retaliate against its enemies in a way it wouldn't has it been in better economic shape. An Iran which was in better economic shape and didn't feel so isolated would be less insecure and desperate and would be less likely to undertake certain types of actions which carry a high degree of risk.

Iran's policy of revolution is clear, and we have seen that during the JCPOA Iran has only ramped up its activities, with its proxies armed and restocked swiftly, and it was this quick expansion and build-up that followed the economical relief for Iran that led the region's countries to protest the JCPOA, and part of the reason the deal was cancelled.

 

[STURM]

.

Cruise missiles, radars, ballistic missiles of all sorts and ICBM tech, air defenses of all tiers, fighter aircraft, AEW aircraft.

I don't see Russia providing all that given various reasons which I touched on in a previous post.

A covert electronic war between Israel and Russia has been ongoing for years.

I'd be surprised it there wasn't.If countries which are actual allies conduct Intel gathering on each other, no surprises that Russia and Israel.are doing the same, especially.given the circumstances in Syria.

Russia and Israel have been involved in.various competing cover stuff for decades and both have cooperated when it was mutually beneficial. Israel many many years ago was reported to have shared certain stuff with the Soviets which is wasn't supposed to.do. This may have been mentioned in Hersh's ''The Sampson Option' or maybe it was another book.

That's because we don't see it in the news, because today's dictatorships know how to cut off the internet for everyone, leading to a media blackout as well.

The fact remains that the vast majority.of Iranians have not protested against the sanctions and many - although they may not be fond of their leaders - are united in Iran istanding up to what they see as another Western attempt to isolate Iran, which smacks of blatant hypocrisy and double standards. The fact also remains that although the sanctions make good headlines, it has not had the intended effect.

The last protests claimed the lives of 1,500 citizens. I wouldn't call that a small protest-

I wouldn't call it large either given the size of the population and I'm under no illusions that sanctions will have the effect the U.S. and others intended.

Iran's policy of revolution is clear

What is also clear is that Iran is doing what it has to and what it can in line with its strengths and limitations, to safeguard its key interests. Also, as mentioned previously it's not necessarily a richer Iran [as you suggested] but a weakened one which might undertake certain actions which it otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

don't see Russia providing all that given various reasons which I touched on in a previous post.

I missed that argument then. Can you quote your explanation? I don't know what post you're referring to.
Because we do know for a fact that Russia has not refrained from supplying long and short range air defense systems, radars, and cruise missile tech to Iran in the past, and recent reports point toward a possible, albeit delayed deal for new equipment.
This source is more skeptical than others, but the fact it's even talked about shows it is a possibility, and not strictly off limits:

Is Iran going on an arms shopping spree in Moscow?

Iran has frequently turned to Russia for arms it could not produce at home.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

This may have been mentioned in Hersh's ''The Sampson Option' or maybe it was another book.

The Samson Option itself is nothing more than a myth. It assumes a nuclear policy that is far more symbolic and counter-productive than what is expected of Israel, and assumes a policy when in all likelihood the number of people who know the actual one may probably be counted on two hands.

The fact remains that the vast majority.of Iranians have not protested against the sanctions and many - although they may not be fond of their leaders - are united in Iran istanding up to what they see as another Western attempt to isolate Iran, which smacks of blatant hypocrisy and double standards. The fact also remains that although the sanctions make good headlines, it has not had the intended effect.

Is it still the widely accepted assumption that sancions exist to cause revolutions? They are practiced by pretty much the entire world, and I wouldn't assume myself smarter than all the world's leaders.
They are an effective tool at pressuring governments. They get the job done in convincing countries to negotiate, and from a weaker position. They get the job done in curbing military aggression, which is IMO the biggest benefit here.

I would prefer the Iranians revolt, but even if they never will, sanctions are still necessary against countries like Iran, North Korea and co.

What is also clear is that Iran is doing what it has to and what it can in line with its strengths and limitations, to safeguard its key interests. Also, as mentioned previously it's not necessarily a richer Iran [as you suggested] but a weakened one which might undertake certain actions which it otherwise wouldn't.

So are you saying Iran would slow down its military activities across the middle east if sanctions are removed? Because the evidence points to the opposite.

 

[STURM]

I missed that argument then. Can you quote your explanation? I don't know what post you're referring to.

You spoke of how Israel would refrain from supplying the Ukraine with weapons due to fears or concerns that Russia would retaliate by providing Iran with strategic weapons.

I pointed out Russia would be unlikely to resort to such a risky move which comes with a lot of political baggage and expose it to risk. It can perhaps resort to other more subtle and deniable ways.

The Samson Option itself is nothing more than a myth

I'm aware of what the term refers to but in this case it refers to a well known book about how Israel acquired a nuke capability - the history, covert ops including Rafi Eitan's involvement, French help, the Vananu case, initial attempts by the U.S. to block things, etc.

They are an effective tool at pressuring governments. They get the job done in convincing countries to negotiate, and from a weaker position.

Maybe at State Department briefings and on PowePoint briefs but in reality they fail to cause the intended effect and it's ordinary citizenship which end up paying the price. Sanctions on Iran have nearly crippled Iran but it has failed to lead to the desired political results, either to Iran capitulating to Western demands, to being unable to do what it needs to or to the locals overthrowing their poltical masters. In fact its highly counter productive, [it alienates the locals as it leads to their suffering] despite on the surface appearing to be sound and being politically acceptable to those who impose them.

Years of sanctions on Iraq accomplished nothing except causing the deaths of Iraqi children, who amongst other things, were denied the machines needed to treat them because the machines had a dual.purpose. In the end the U.S. invaded and look how well that turn out for the region.

I wouldn't assume myself smarter than all the world's leaders

Would this include the wise, well intentioned and well informed world leaders whose policies failed in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, causing immense suffering for the locals? The same world leaders who are so gung ho about Iran but have no clear policy on North Korea? The same world leaders who are noticeably silent about a particular country's nuke capability and who also - despite all the non proliferation talk - failed to prevent Pakistan and India from being nuke armed?

sanctions are still necessary against countries like Iran, North Korea

Really? Strange that but a heavily sanctioned North Korea has steadily improved its nuke capability.

So are you saying Iran would slow down its military activities across the middle east if sanctions are removed?

No I clearly didn't. This is what I wrote in a previous post. I will not make any assumptions...

A point be made that its not a richer but weaker Iran which might take certain steps to protect its interests and to retaliate against its enemies in a way it wouldn't had it been in better economic shape. An Iran which was in better economic shape and didn't feel so isolated would be less insecure and desperate and would be less likely to undertake certain types of actions which carry a high degree of risk.