I'm sure these negotiations will turn out well

The battle between Saudi Arabia and its allies against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen is on hold, apparently. The Saudi-led coalition, which includes the United Arab Emirates, is willing to give the United Nations a chance to prevent a bloodbath as the coalition prepares to finish taking the Yemeni port city of Hodeida from the Houthis:

"We welcome continuing efforts by UN Special Envoy, Martin Griffiths, to achieve an unconditional Houthi withdrawal from Hodeida city and port.
"We have paused our campaign to allow enough time for this option to be fully explored. We hope he will succeed," UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash said on Twitter.
The condition for a full withdrawal by the Houthis from Saudi Arabia and its allies has led to previous peace talks to collapse, and in his comments on Sunday Gargash made clear that if this was to happen again, the UAE would continue its military campaign.

I cannot imagine why anyone would not want these people in their neighborhood:

Look at those bulging cheeks. That ain't Skoal, baby. Those bitches are chewing khat. It's a stimulant, but maybe closer to cocaine than coffee. Anyway, these guys apparently really like it, and these are the Houthis that Iran is backing. In general, anyone Iran likes, I don't. I'm sure talks will break down soon and the Saudis and company can get back to the business of kicking these guys' asses.

Shit is getting real between Iran and Israel

It is possible that the level of nastiness between Iran and Israel -- always high to begin with -- is going up. Early this morning, the Israelis launched a strike at Iran's buddies in Syria:

In the early hours of Monday morning, two Israeli fighter jets crossed into southern Lebanon and launched a number of missiles at Syria’s strategic T4—or Tiyas—airbase in Homs province. The missiles struck a section of the base used exclusively by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), its external specialist Quds Force and Hezbollah to house senior personnel, strategic weaponry and sophisticated drones in semi-hardened air hangars. At least 14 people were killed in the missile strike, which Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov later labeled a “very dangerous development” in an unusually harsh rebuke of the sort of Israeli action that Moscow usually has glossed over quietly.

Apparently, Israel has hit this airbase before but, because Russian aircraft operate from the base, has always chosen to notify the Russians before striking. This time, they did not. This could be a big deal. It follows a clash in February in which Iran apparently lured an Israeli response by sending a drone across the Israeli border. After the Israelis launched a retaliatory strike against the Tiyas airfield that launched the drone, striking the IRGC section of the airfield, Iranian and Syrian surface-to-air missile sites shot down an Israeli aircraft. Apparently it took a call from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to halt further Israeli retaliatory strikes. Looks like the gloves might be off.


Yeah, it did.

Iran wants to pretend it is designing original aircraft. Verdict: Fail

Iran has essentially no domestic aircraft industry, whether for civilian aircraft or military. What they produce -- to the extent they produce any aircraft on their own -- is stolen. Otherwise, they buy planes from overseas. Witness the deal with Boeing for passenger aircraft.

When it comes to military aircraft, though, the Iranians are much more limited. Sanctions against the regime's purchase of, among other things, military items -- largely lifted by Emperor Barry I without Congressional approval (or even knowledge) -- have kept Iran from updating its air force since they ousted the shah in 1979. Consequently, they have to lie about domestic aircraft developments.

Case in point: Iran is now popping off about a new fighter aircraft they have "developed." It would appear to be a slightly improved version of the F-5, one of the fighters Iran used to buy from the U.S. when the shah was still in power. It clearly is not a new aircraft, nor even a modern aircraft:

Tehran is keen to produce its own jet fighters—but designing and manufacturing advanced combat jets poses formidable technological challenges difficult for an isolated industrial base to resolve on its own. Nonetheless, the Iranian air force has prominently showcased its development of several domestic fighter jets since the turn of the century, most notably the HESA Saeqeh (“Thunderbolt”), which Iranian media have claimed to be superior to the F-18 Hornet.
But performance specifications and technical details for these aircraft have remained either vague or nonexistent. This may be less due to secrecy than because additional details would likely be unimpressive, because the Saeqeh is a reverse-engineered American F-5 Freedom Fighter with a new tail and upgraded avionics.

The similarities between the two aircraft are obvious. Here is the F-5:

Note the single tail. Now, look at Iran's "new" fighter" hoping to pass for an F-18 knockoff:

Ooh, ooh, twin tails! Must be like an F-18, which is a near-fifth generation fighter (the most modern). Except, no. It's an F-5 with twin tails. Not clear what that even adds to the plane's performance, if anything. And it is important to remember that the F-5 was originally developed in the 1950s -- it hardly qualifies as a modern fighter, even though it has undergone a number of upgrades over the years. Even improved, the F-5 is closer to a third-generation fighter than a fifth-generation craft. If this is what Iran is putting up as its first-line fighter, Iran is in trouble if anyone with semi-modern aircraft scuffles with the Islamic Republic.

Can we please glass these people?

The USS Mason is patrolling off the coast of Yemen, and the Yemeni rebels trying to overthrow the government there -- with the support of Iran, thank you very much -- keep shooting missiles at the Mason:

The destroyer USS Mason fired defensive countermeasures in response to what may have been incoming missiles, a defense official said . The ship had been attacked two times before in the past week, which triggered retaliatory strikes against radars used by Houthi rebels in those attacks. The Pentagon is investigating the incident.
"A U.S. Strike Group transiting international waters in the Red Sea detected possible inbound missile threats and deployed appropriate defensive measures," said a U.S. defense official. "Post event assessment is ongoing. All U.S. warships and vessels in the area are safe."
The destroyer USS Nitze and the USS Ponce, an afloat forward staging area ship, were close to the Mason at the time.
U.S. officials had said earlier Sunday that the Mason had come under attack from two inbound missiles that originated in Houthi-controlled territory in Yemen.

By my count, this makes four times the Mason has been fired at. I'm glad to see we've started shooting back, but we really need to do enough to ensure that they actually can't shoot at us anymore. It's time to turn the rocks into pebbles, the pebbles into sand:


Seriously, Iran is giving these guys the missiles, and we keep pretending everything is hunky fucking dory. Why don't we just give Iran a couple of our nuclear weapons and save them some trouble? Hell, maybe Barry the Lame should go ahead and give in to his inner desires and nuke Israel so Iran doesn't have to.

Thank God Emperor Barry is making Iran our friends

As I mentioned previously, Iran built a non-functioning replica (not full size, I think) of a U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. The Navy professed not to know why Iran would do such a think, and Iran claimed it was part of a movie about the 1988 downing of an Iranian civilian aircraft by the USS Vincennes, a vessel that looks nothing like a Nimitz-class carrier. And the Navy apparently leaked to the New York Times that maybe Iran wanted to blow the replica up for propaganda purposes. I suggested what the Navy obviously knew but would not say: they were practicing.

Well, the Navy and I were both right, as I suspected:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — With rockets roaring and guns blazing, more than a dozen swarming Iranian speedboats assaulted a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier Wednesday during large-scale naval drills near the strategically vital entrance of the Persian Gulf.
The nationally televised show of force by the country's elite Revolutionary Guard comes just weeks ahead of a deadline for Iran and world powers to forge a historic deal on the fate of the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

So, a high-profile, filmed "training exercise" depicts Iranian forces attacking and destroying a Nimitz-class carrier. Imagine that. And what a coincidence that Emperor Barry has a boner to get a deal that lets Iran build a nuke.  Personally, I don't think Iran really needed to do anything to intimidate Barry. What they did is clownish, but why argue with success?

Iranian live-fire war games are not uncommon. But by simulating for the first time an attack on the ultimate symbol of American naval power, hard-liners hoped to send a message that Iran has no intention of backing down to the U.S. — whichever way talks over its contested nuclear program go.
"American aircraft carriers are very big ammunition depots housing a lot of missiles, rockets, torpedoes and everything else," the Guard's navy chief, Adm. Ali Fadavi, said on state television. A direct hit by a missile could set off a large secondary explosion, he added.

So here is a picture of the "carrier" being hit by a missile:

And a 'splosion:

Why on Earth would you doubt that these people seriously want to reach a deal with us to end their nuclear weapons program? And what kind of cynic would think they won't honor that deal? After all, who thinks a foreign power not friendly to us would fail to live up to "the promise of hashtag"?

Is this supposed to work as a negotiating tactic?

On the other hand, in light of how bad Emperor Barry I wants to reach a deal -- any deal -- on their nuclear program, even one that lets them get an atomic bomb, I think maybe yes, it will work:

(Reuters) - Iran's foreign minister has warned the United States that failure to agree a nuclear deal would likely herald the political demise of pragmatist President Hassan Rouhani, Iranian officials said, raising the stakes as the decade-old stand-off nears its end-game.

Think Emperor Barry I isn't desperate for a deal? Think again:

A top Iranian military leader claims that U.S. officials have been “begging us” to sign a nuclear deal during closed door negotiations with Tehran over its contested nuclear program, according to recent comments made to the Iranian state-controlled media.
Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the commander of the Basij, a paramilitary group operating under the wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), recently claimed that the “Americans are begging us for a deal on the negotiation table,” according to commentspublished in Persian and independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.

Maybe in light of that, the "threat" against Rouhani makes sense. Think "Blazing Saddles:"

Unfortunately, it cuts off before Clevon Little says, "You sure are good. And they sure are dumb." Because that describes the Iranians and the Obama administration perfectly. Iran is going to get everything it wants. Thanks, Barry.

Man, I hate being right

Some of you may recall my post regarding Iran building a 3/4-size mock-up of a Nimitz-class U.S. aircraft carrier, in which I suggested that the Iranians might build a mock-up for the same reasons we do -- to practice attacks on the real thing. The Navy said no, the Iranians said no, and lots of bullshit reasons were offered as to what the Iranians were up to.

Ahem.

Yeah, they're planning on practicing attacks on U.S. carriers. I am, of course, not surprised, but I do want some props:

The Sunday report by independent Haft-e Sobh daily quotes Adm. Ali Fadavi, navy chief of the powerful Revolutionary Guards as saying Iranian forces should "target the carrier in the trainings, after it is completed."

So, I guess that movie isn't going to happen. Weird. Although, of course, I thought the Iranians' choice of props was odd:

Hard to understand why a movie about that incident would involve building a mock-up of an aircraft carrier when the U.S. ship that shot down the airliner was an Aegis cruiser, and no aircraft carrier was involved. Oddly enough, this Aegis cruiser:

does not look like this Nimitz-class aircraft carrier:

Anyway, I think -- I hope -- the Navy wasn't really fooled. I'm sure the administration was, which would be why the Navy spokesman went ahead and sounded like a doofus, talking about propaganda. I really hope the Navy hasn't gotten stupid enough to underestimate our enemies that badly.

Iran couldn't possibly be practicing attacks on U.S. aircraft carriers, could they? Nah.

About a week ago, the idiots at The Hill -- a government-funded propaganda organ for the Democrat party (supposedly nonpartisan but, seriously, read it sometime) couldn't imagine why Iran would be building a 3/4-size replica of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. It apparently is not intended to be a functional carrier, but merely a reasonable, sea-going-ish (it floats) facsimile of a Nimitz-class carrier. Maybe without engines. Why build such a thing?

“We’re not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?” said Cmdr. Jason Salata, a spokesman for the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which operates out of Bahrain.
One potential reason that Tehran might want to blow up an American carrier would be if the nuclear talks fall apart between Iran and the P5+1 group: the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China.

It is not surprising a Navy spokesman wouldn't tell a media outlet -- in this case, not The Hill but the New York Times, whom The Hill was quoting -- what the Navy really thought. Instead, they fed the NYT the maybe-they-want-to-blow-it-up-for-propaganda horseshit quoted by The Hill:

WASHINGTON — Iran is building a nonworking mock-up of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that United States officials say may be intended to be blown up for propaganda value.

What could possibly be misleading about that? Hmmmmmmm. Why might Iran build a mock-up of a U.S. aircraft carrier? Gee, it's almost like the way U.S. Special Forces build mock-ups of villages and buildings where we are planning to conduct raids so that they can practice under realistic circumstances. Nah, that couldn't be it, Iran says:

According to Iranian newspapers quoted by Reuters, the mock ship was in fact “part of the decor” of a movie being made by director Nader Talebzadeh on the 1988 shooting down of an Iran Air civilian plane by the USS Vincennes. All 290 passengers and crew on board the plane were killed in the disaster, which the US called an “accident.”

Hard to understand why a movie about that incident would involve building a mock-up of an aircraft carrier when the U.S. ship that shot down the airliner was an Aegis cruiser, and no aircraft carrier was involved. Oddly enough, this Aegis cruiser:

does not look like this Nimitz-class aircraft carrier:

So why is it so difficult to figure out why the Iranians are building a mock Nimitz and not a mock Vincennes, the ship involved in the shoot-down that supposedly is the subject of the movie? Oddly enough, somebody finally found an analyst who would tell the truth: that Iran clearly is planning to practice techniques to take down a U.S. carrier:

It is far more likely that the Iranians are building a replica of a U.S. aircraft carrier to practice their swarm techniques, [Christopher] Harmer [of the Institute for the Study of War] said. After losing battles with the U.S. Navy in the 1980s, the Iranians realized that they could not defeat the U.S. Navy in a conventional fight, so they have adopted Kamikaze tactics in which hundreds or thousands of small boats armed with rocket launchers or machine guns would launch suicide attacks against U.S. warships.

Hey, ya think? I mean, just because we build mock-ups to practice attacks doesn't mean other countries might do the same thing, right? Yeah, that's what I thought, too.

I don't really know why, but we have an Eff You visitor from Iran

First time for somebody from Iran, of course. Seems weird, considering we did not get a visitor from Iran even after my infamous "Iranian space monkeys" post which, I admit, may have been infamous only on this site. Still, you know you want to say "Iranian space monkeys" during a conversation.

In any event, we have a visitor from Iran and, while this is not a geography blog -- except when it is -- we must give Iran the Eff You treatment. So here goes.

Iran, formerly known as Persia, is an extremely old civilization, with a settlements dating back to around 8000 BC. One of the world's most mountainous countries, Iran was not blessed by the weather gods, as most of the country is arid or semi-arid, but it is up to its collective schwanzes in oil. Iran is mostly in the news these days as a country trying really hard to develop nuclear weapons so that it can nuke those nasty Jews in Israel out of existence.

Hey, Israel and Saudi Arabia working together? Maybe Barry's "smart power" is finally working

Or, um, not. As we see here, the Times of Israel is reporting that Israel and Saudi Arabia are cooperating in plans for a military strike against Iran to keep Iran from completing a nuclear weapon.

Israel is working on coordinating plans for a possible military strike with Saudi Arabia, with Riyadh prepared to provide tactical support to Jerusalem, a British newspaper reported early Sunday.The two countries have both united in worry that the West may come to terms with Iran, easing sanctions and allowing the Islamic Republic to continue its nuclear program.

Apparently, they are doing this because the Obama administration has a major boner to strike a deal -- any deal -- with Iran on nuclear weapons development, regardless of whether that deal actually puts a crimp in Iran's efforts to develop a bomb. The New York Times reports that a deal with Iran is close:

“For the first time in nearly a decade,” the official said, “we are getting close to a first step that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll it back in key areas.”
Talks between six world powers and Iran are scheduled to resume in Geneva next week. Western diplomats hope to complete an accord then that would halt Iran’s nuclear efforts for six months while negotiators pursue a more comprehensive agreement that would ensure that Tehran’s program is solely for civilian purposes.

The problem, apparently, is that the deal the Obama administration is "close" to achieving is really shitty for everybody but Iran. It took France -- France, for crying out loud -- to put the brakes on the shitty deal last week:

Negotiations between Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, China, and France), and Germany hit a snag Saturday after France expressed concerns that the proposed deal did not do enough to trim Iran's nuclear ambitions.
French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said that the talks managed to narrow differences without eliminating them, saying there are "still questions to be dealt with" in future rounds. Later, Fabius told France-Inter Radio that France did not want to be part of a "con game."

The cheese-eating surrender monkeys who used to trade hand jobs with Saddam Hussein said that the Obama-proposed deal with Iran was a "con game." Questions, anyone?

You might think that would be enough to slow down the man who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the title of  Worst Secretary of State EVAH, John Kerry. You would be wrong:

Secretary of State John Kerry took his case on Wednesday to Capitol Hill, urging Congress not to impose new sanctions on Iran as talks with that country on its nuclear program heat up.
"Our hope is that no new sanctions would be put in place for the simple reason that, if they are, it could be viewed as bad faith by the people we are negotiating with," Kerry said before entering a closed-door briefing with members of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
"It could destroy the ability to be able to get agreement," he added, "and it could actually wind up setting us back in dialogue that's taken 30 years to achieve."

Joltin' John thinks that lifting sanctions on Iran and letting the mullahs continue a nuclear program will be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Oddly enough, some of the countries that are actually within range of a potential Iranian nuclear weapon do not agree:

Iran’s bid for the bomb “threatens directly the future of the Jewish state,” Netanyahu told CNN recently, in a short preview clip of an interview broadcast on Saturday. As the prime minister of Israel, he stressed, he had to care for “the survival of my country.”
. . .
Saudi Arabia, a Sunni Muslim country across the Persian Gulf from Iran, has long been at odds with Tehran, and fears a nuclear weapon would threaten Riyadh and set off a nuclear arms race in the region.

I can only speculate that Barry and the rest of the gang feel like they need to accomplish something, somewhere to make it look like Barry knows his ass from a hole in the ground and is not the most incompetent president since, um, well, shit. I can't think of a more incompetent president, and I'm thinking of you, Jimmy Carter. As it is, with his signature domestic program looking more and more like a complete disaster, Barry would love to have something to show that he has something on the ball, and a deal that "stops" Iran from developing a bomb would fit the bill, even if the deal doesn't actually do that.

Maybe Barry should put forward an Israeli-Saudi join effort as proof that he has a successful Middle East policy. I guess if Obama can get the Israelis and Saudis working together, then that would be a major accomplishment. Of course, they appear to be working together to thwart Obama's diplomatic objectives, but hey. Smart power, baby.