ESCALATION: Russian Marines And Air Power Heads For Syria

This represents a very significant development as we watch the prophetic developments now happening at breakneck speed. Russia is letting the U.S. know, in no uncertain terms, what they think of efforts to arm the 'rebels'. And Russia isn't playing around as Syria represents a vital interest for Russia in the region, and it is now clear that they are willing to fight for it. 

One has to also consider the significance of the Russian build-up in Syria, as we know the invasion of Gog-Magog will come from the north of Israel. 

Russia Marine And Air Power Head For Syria Versus Western Intervention - "To Defend Russian Citizens" Says Moscow

Just one day after the G8 Summit ended in the failure of Western leaders to overcome Russian resistance to a resolution mandating President Bashar Assad’s ouster, Moscow announced Wednesday June 19, the dispatch to Syria of two warships carrying 600 Russian marines. They were coming, said the official statement, "to protect the Russian citizens there." Russian Deputy Air Force Commander Maj.-Gen. Gradusov added that an air force umbrella would be provided the Russian expeditionary force if needed...military sources report that the pretext offered by Moscow for sending the force thinly disguised Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intent to flex Russian military muscle in response to the delivery of Western heavy arms to Syrian rebels

Putin was giving the West due warning that if they persisted in arming the rebels any further, a Russian troop landing in Syria would take place in the guise of an operation to evacuate endangered Russian nationals.

Some 20,000 Russians live in Syria. In former stages of the conflict, they were given the locations of assembly points should Moscow decide to lift them out of the war-torn country. The evacuation of Russian citizens would in itself dramatically denote the expansion of the Syrian conflict.

The Russian Interfax news agency identified the warships heading for Syrian shores as the Nikolai Filchenkov Large Landing Ship and the Vice Admiral Kulakov, a Udaloy 1 class destroyer, each carrying 300 marines. Aboard the former are also 20 tanks and 15 armored troop carriers or military trucks, while the Kulakov is designed mainly for anti-submarine warfare.

Maj.-Gen. Gradusov was quoted as saying: "We won't abandon the Russians and will evacuate them from the conflict zone, if necessary."

Asked if the Russian aircraft were intended as air cover for the Russian warships coming to Syria, he declined to answer, saying said only "They will act on orders."

The Moscow communiqué does not say when the Russian forces are scheduled to reach port in Syria or in which part of the country they are to operate. Our military sources say their impending presence in the war zone and the possibility of Western-supplied weapons in Syrian rebel hands causing Russian casualties are enough to contribute three more perilous dimensions to the Syrian conflict:

1. The harming of Russian soldiers would give Moscow an excuse to pile on more military reinforcements in Syria;

2.  Russian air power is on its way to Syrian airspace before any decision is taken in the West about imposing a US-led no-fly zone over Syria;

3.  The presence of Russian military personnel in Syria would pour more fuel on the already highly incendiary diplomatic and military tensions between Washington and Moscow over this conflict.

If that isn't enough (above), today we have another warning on Iran's approach of the red line in terms of nuclear development:

[This is actually a lengthy article but it is fascinating and is loaded with information not only pertaining to Iran but Syria and the greater Middle East as well, and is well worth reading in full]

Running Out Of Time On Iran And All Out Of Options

Richard A. Clarke was the counterterrorism chief for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

It was Clarke who was in the hot seat, running the White House Situation Room, on 9/11 — he it was who had overseen the efforts to prevent 9/11, and he who wrote a devastating book on 9/11, “Against All Enemies,” after resigning in 2003. The book castigated George W. Bush’s administration for failing to heed his warnings on al-Qaeda before 9/11, for squandering the opportunity to eliminate al-Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and for deciding instead to go to war in Iraq.

During the conference, Clarke, 62, sat down with The Times of Israel for a characteristically no-nonsense interview in which we discussed Iran’s nuclear program, the Syrian civil war, ongoing terror threats to the United States, the reasons behind the continued incarceration of spy-for-Israel Jonathan Pollard and a whole lot more.

As was to be anticipated for a man who held vast responsibility for the wellbeing of his nation, Clarke was brisk, blunt and clear in his assessments. He said flatly that the Iranians will “complete” their nuclear program unless someone stops them. He also said that he was “on the apocalyptic side” when gauging the repercussions of military intervention to stop them. “The Iranian government won’t take it lying down,” said Clarke. “And there’s some relatively high risk that it would expand into a war that not only involves Israel, but involves attacks in the United States through cyber attacks from Iran, and involves attacks on the American Gulf allies. And that could be very, very messy. It could have worldwide economic effects. And I don’t know how it ends.”

Look, if the United States and/or Israel ever had to use force against the Iranian nuclear program, I believe that would precipitate a major conflagration. Now, there are people who say, “Oh, they’ll just take it. They’ll just take the hit, they’ll go to the UN, they’ll complain and they’ll go back and start it all over again.” I don’t think so. I know that there are people in the Israeli government who believe that.

There’s a range, from relatively sanguine all the way to apocalypse.

I’m more on the apocalyptic side. I think the Iranian government won’t take it lying down. And there’s some relatively high risk that it would expand into a war that not only involves Israel, but involves attacks in the United States through cyber attacks from Iran, and involves attacks on the American Gulf allies. And that could be very, very messy. It could have worldwide economic effects. And I don’t know how it ends.

I’m not saying it’s definitely the outcome. I’m saying it’s a high enough probability. You know, when you go to a president of the United States with considerations for something like this, you always get a “What are the risks?” and you try to put probabilities on those risks. It’s not a science, so you really can’t do that with any accuracy. But I think a president of the United States deciding to bomb an Iranian nuclear facility has to know there is some significant probability that that will precipitate a major conflagration in the region, that will have adverse effects on Israel, on America’s friends in the Gulf, and perhaps on the United States.

Yeah, I think the straightforward analysis at the moment is, if Iran continues and crosses the red line, wherever you think the red line is, that the United States has said it will act. And if it does, I think there’s a really high probability of a major conflict.