The Interlocking Of strategical Paradigms

Authorized by Alastair Crooke via the Ron Paul Institute,

Theodore Postol, prof. of Science, Technology and National safety Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and rocket ‘demonstration’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, alternatively than an ‘assault’.

The leading Israel daily, Yediot Ahoronet, has estimated the cost of approaching to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The introductions of this single number are substantial.

Professor Postol writes:

“This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this kind is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequatley armed and determined adversary".

“The videos show an utmost crucial fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missions", [fired from most U.S. aircraft. any 154 aircraft reportly were aloft at the time] likely shooting AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missions. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air rocket is about $500,000".

Furthermore:

“The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missions could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower attributes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow rocket defenses, they were not peculiarly effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that fundamentally all or most of the arrival long-range ballistic missions were not understood by any of the Israeli air and missionary-defence systems".

A Tel Aviv demonstrators holds an Israel flag during a Ukraine-related protest, AFP via Getty Images

Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have included that commercially available optical and competitive technology is more than available of being adapted to a cruise missionary guidance strategy to give it very advanced precision homing capacity ... it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missions and drones”.

“The introductions of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missions and drones will be very advanced and might well be unstable unless utmost inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no 1 has demonstrated a cost-effective defence strategy that can interact ballistic missions with any reliability".

Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defence to a powerful attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic silos across the entry terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, evenwe central command and communications to be full lost.

This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The large physical expension on air defence ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeted willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easy persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unstable air-defence costs.

But also, as a second crucial implication, these Air defence assets are not just costly in dollar terms, they are simply not there: i.e. the store cupboard is close empathy! And the U.S. labels the manufacturing capacity to replace these not partially effective, advanced cost platforms speedily.

‘Yes, Ukraine’ ... the mediate East paradigm interlinks straight with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has been successful in destroying so much of the western supported, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia close complete air domination over the skis.

Positioning scarce air defence ‘to save Israel’ therefore, Exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the fresh pastage of the surviving Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a precedence for sending to Kiev – where the West looks creatively trapped and rumbling for a way out that does not lead to humilation.

But before leaving the mediate East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already seen: He must so focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian spread or to Lebanon – to supply Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government cracks.

In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrated and not destructive norethal is that the White home must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electrical erosion through exacerbating home tensions arriving from the on-going topant slaughter of Palestinians.

It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni arabian States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalisation) with Israel.

In the event of widget conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot defend them – as prof. Postol so clearly shows. And can they number on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its Scarce Air Defenses and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White home precedence tager.

In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missions, which Postol notes, “Had an effective access of possibly a fewer feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and competitive guidance system, giving a very precise homing capacity)’.

So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence deposition paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the 3rd Paradigm) is simily interlinked with Ukraine.

For the western proxy war with Russia centered on Ukraine has made 1 thing abundantly clear: this is that The West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defence manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China.

The western maximumization of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.

Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been surviving a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucid space of imaginary fresh financial products (such as derivatives) that make quite a few money quickly, but which destabilise society (through expanding disparities of wealth); and which ultimate, de-stabilise the global strategy itself (as the planet Majority states recoil from the destiny of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism items).

More broadly, the global strategy is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times wars,

“The U.S. and EU can not embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to Narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary “rules”, while besides utilizing the IMF and planet Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t anticipate others not to copy what it does”. As the FT agreements“the shift to a fresh economical paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.”

‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain adequate – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, mostly national economy, protected from abroad competition by customers barriers. Call it ‘old-fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notices simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.

‘European leaders’, however, see the economical paradigm solution differently:

“The ECB’s Panettagave a velocity echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radial change”: He stood for the EU to thrill it needs a de facto national-security focus POLITICAL economy centred around: reducing dependence on abroad demand; enhancing energy safety (green protectionism); advanced production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); winning migration flows (so higher labour cost); expanding external safety (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds ... to be boought by ECB QE)”.

The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotating away, and as fresh wars began to be promoted. It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.

But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defence and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from close ground zero?

Is it realistic to think that the American safety State will let Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economical vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on inexpensive energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?

This Draghi-ECB plan presents a large structural change; they would take a decade or 2 to implement and would cost trillions. It would happen too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that first Europeans support specified extremist structural change?

Why then is Europe pursuing a way that embraces large risks – 1 that might possibly drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?

For 1 main reason: The EU leadership held humanistic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White home squad for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armies and sanctioning the inexpensive energy on which the economy is allocated.

It was this decision that has been de-industrializing Europe; that has made what claims of a real economy uncompetitive and tried the inflation that is undermining surviving standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine task has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.

Were this policy line to change, Europe could repeat to what it was: a trading association formed of different sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a Diplomatic actor, alternatively than as a military actor.