Early this morning Iranian air defense shot down a U.S. high attitude reconnaissance drone:
DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards have shot down a U.S. “spy” drone in the southern province of Hormozgan, which is on the Gulf, the Guards’ news website Sepah News said on Thursday.
State news agency IRNA carried the same report, identifying the drone as an RQ-4 Global Hawk.
“It was shot down when it entered Iran’s airspace near the Kouhmobarak district in the south,” the Guards’ website added.
bigger
A later statement by the IRGC detailed the incident:
The American UAV took off from an US base in the south of the Persian Gulf at 00:14 am today morning and contrary to aviation laws, it shut off all of its introduction equipment and proceeded from the Strait of Hormuz to Chabahar with complete secrecy.
The unmanned aircraft while returning to the west of the region towards the Strait of Hormuz, violated the territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and start collecting information and spying.
At 4:55 am, when the aggressive UAV entered our country’s territory, it was targeted by the IRGC air force and was shot down.
The U.S. says that the drone was a MQ-4C Triton, the navy variant of the Global Hawk type that is specialized on Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS). It claims that the drone was in international airspace when Iran's Revolutionary Guard shot it down.
(Interestingly no MQ-4C is supposed to be in the Middle East. The deployment must have been secret. Update: This specific drone seems to have arrived in Qatar only five days ago. Additional details are discussed here. /update)
Global Hawk type drone - bigger
The incident is another piece of evidence that Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran now works against him.
Trump allegedly told his staff to stop talking up war on Iran:
Two senior officials and three other individuals with direct knowledge of the administration’s strategy in the region tell The Daily Beast that the president has asked officials to tone down their heated rhetoric on Iran ...
Trump does not want to open a military conflict with Iran. But he is already waging a brutal economic war against Iran and the country is pushing back. Trump wants negotiations with Iran without first lifting his sanctions against it. Iran rejects that.
It does no longer matter what Trump wants. Iran has achieved escalation dominance. It can cause a myriad of incidents that force Trump to react. He can either launch a hot war and thereby risk his reelection bid, or he can cut back on the sanctions that hurt the Iranian people. If he does not do either, more pinpricks will follow and will over time become more costly.
Abas Aslani @AbasAslani - 7:29 UTC · 20 Jun 2019
#Iran's #IRGC commander Salami: Shooting down the US drone had a clear & strong message i.e. we'll react strongly against any assault to the country. Borders are our red line. We are not after a war with any country, but we are ready for war. Message of today's incident was clear.
The loss of the Global Hawk drone is significant. These huge birds, with a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737, are considered strategic assets. They were build as replacements for the infamous U-2 spy planes. They carry highly classified sensors and cost more than $120 million a piece.
bigger
This loss can certainly be attributed to Iran. But to blame Iran for it the U.S. will have to prove that its drone did not enter Iranian air space. Only two days ago the Federal Aviation Authority issued a warning for aircraft flying in the area.
U.S. drones have violated Iran's sovereign airspace many times. In 2011 Iran acquired a stealthy RQ-170 drone which had flown in from Afghanistan by manipulating its command signals. In 2012 Iran took down another U.S. drone, a Boeing Scan Eagle, that had flown in from the Persian Gulf. Many other U.S. drones were shot down over Iranian territory:
In January [2011], Iran said it had shot down two conventional (nonstealth) drones, and in July, Iran showed Russian experts several US drones – including one that had been watching over the underground uranium enrichment facility at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom. ... Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Fox News on Dec. 13 that the US will "absolutely" continue the drone campaign over Iran, looking for evidence of any nuclear weapons work. But the stakes are higher for such surveillance, now that Iran can apparently disrupt the work of US drones.
The Persian cats are by now well trained in anti-drone measures.
Persian cats train to take down RQ-170 drones Photo via Thomas Erdbrink - bigger
How will Trump react to this incident? President John Bolton will demand military action against Iran as revenge for the shoot down. He will surely also press for sending more troops to the Middle East.
Trump may again play down the incident, like he recently did with the tanker attack which he called "very minor". But the war hawks in the media and Congress, and Iran, will put more pressure on him. More incidents would surely follow.
Trump has a way out. He could issue sanction waivers to allow China, Japan, South Korea, India and others to again import Iranian oil. It would take the "maximum" out of his now failed "maximum pressure" campaign and could be a way to move towards negotiations.
#1: Cynicom To: Ada (#0)
Really??????
I would much rather be sitting in Washington than Tehran.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-20 10:26:35 Reply Private Reply
#2: Horse To: Ada (#0)
Horse posted on 2019-06-20 11:59:45 Reply Private Reply
#3: Lod To: Ada (#0)
Lod posted on 2019-06-20 12:55:46 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tatarewicz To: Ada (#0)
But Iran says parts found on its territory:
Zarif: Parts of Downed US Drone Collected from "Iranian Territory" TEHRAN (FNA)- Iran has retrieved parts of the US Global Hawk that was shot down on Thursday from the country's territorial waters, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, rejecting Washington's claim that the aircraft was targeted in international waters.
Is Trump just making things up again?
Tatarewicz posted on 2019-06-20 21:12:03 Reply Private Reply
#5: Lod To: Tatarewicz (#4)
Let US leave the ME to their own devices, now!
Lod posted on 2019-06-20 21:28:36 Reply Private Reply
#6: hondo68 To: Lod, Tatarewicz, neo-conned again (#5)
Fill up your gas tank while you still can.
hondo68 posted on 2019-06-20 22:25:56 Reply Private Reply
#7: Ada To: Cynicom (#1)
Ada posted on 2019-06-21 13:43:35 Reply Private Reply
#8: Cynicom To: Ada (#7)
What chance????.....Very poor "chance"...
Now, do you understand why that strategy is acceptable???
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 15:16:34 Reply Private Reply
#9: randge To: Cynicom (#8)
That's what I get from your post. Some of your comments are maddeningly cryptic. I think that often you are teasing readers into guessing your meaning.
Please correct me if my interpretation is wide of the mark.
randge posted on 2019-06-21 16:39:19 Reply Private Reply
#10: Ada To: Cynicom (#8)
Strategy? Making US war ships sitting ducks? Like the Pearl Harbor strategy?
Ada posted on 2019-06-21 16:52:57 Reply Private Reply
#11: Rotara To: Ada, randge, Cynicom (#10)
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 17:09:58 Reply Private Reply
#12: Cynicom To: Ada (#10)
Indeed...
If you look on internet, you can find a photocopy of a cablegram sent from Hawaii to War Dept, Washington, in 1938, from Col. George Patton warning them that Japan was coming and from what direction. That was three years before FDR put battleships at Pearl Harbor for bait.
Hence carriers, keep them under noses of possible enemies that MUST TAKE THEM OUT FIRST IF THEY WANT TO GO TO WAR. That is indeed strategy.
If that strategy is so wrong, then why are Britain, China and India building carriers????
During Korean thing, I lost friends flying spy missions for NSA that got caught too close to Russia and were shot down. The Russians said nothing and our Air Force said they were lost on...routine training mission...
Strategy yes.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 17:45:14 Reply Private Reply
#13: randge To: Cynicom (#12)
Wow. You rang the bell, Cyni. That was nice and clear.
Carriers. They are the line in the sand.
randge posted on 2019-06-21 17:57:03 Reply Private Reply
#14: hondo68 To: Rotara (#11)
LBJ & Donnell would have attacked if there were any Israel assets within 5,000 miles.
They stand by their chosen people.
hondo68 posted on 2019-06-21 18:02:31 Reply Private Reply
#15: randge To: Rotara (#11)
There were other assets in the Gulf of Tonkin. Ones we don't talk about today any too much.
Under US naval supervision, the bottoms in that region were seismically sounded for all the petroleum that lies beneath. All of this during the course of that conflict.
And all of that dope got spooled up and resides on the servers belonging to geophysics giants like Schlumberger and others. We know what's down there.
randge posted on 2019-06-21 18:04:54 Reply Private Reply
#16: Cynicom To: Rotara, All (#11)
The US and the military did not make war in Vietnam, one lone man made that decision, namely Lyndon Johnson.
MacArthur long before had warned government to, "never go to war on the Asian mainland", the military understood that warning. The politicians did not.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 18:07:33 Reply Private Reply
#17: Cynicom To: Ada, All (#7)
There was a specific message for all to read if they really cared to consider.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 18:15:34 Reply Private Reply
#18: Rotara To: Cynicom (#17)
???
(I dont buy the idea that Trump doesnt want the same outcome as his supposedly hawkish advisors)
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 18:52:41 Reply Private Reply
#19: Cynicom To: randge, All (#13)
Here is url for Patton cable to war dept, YEARS BEFORE PEARL HARBOR PATTON ALSO TOLD THEM THE JAPS WOULD COME FROM THE NORTH, not FROM the west.
The military was flying daily air patrols to the west looking for carriers, years before Pearl Harbor. Years before. Patton wanted to increase patrols to cover the northern routes. That was denied.
https://www.army.mil/article/49030/patton_warned_of_pearl_harbor_attack
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 19:02:11 Reply Private Reply
#20: Ada To: Cynicom (#12)
Carriers are now obsolete just like battleships were for WWII. Our carriers were kept at sea while a few old battleships were kept as bait in Pearl. If Iran can take out drones at 60,000 feet, they surely can take out old slow carriers. Perhaps their only use is bait to get the war against Iran that Washington has been salivating for.
Ada posted on 2019-06-21 19:31:18 Reply Private Reply
#21: Cynicom To: Rotara (#18)
Every government will read the real message.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 19:33:04 Reply Private Reply
#22: Ada To: Cynicom (#17)
NO, especially since he was going to attack them 24 hours before. Seems to me he understood Iran's message.
Ada posted on 2019-06-21 19:33:30 Reply Private Reply
#23: Cynicom To: Ada (#20)
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 19:36:34 Reply Private Reply
#24: Cynicom To: Ada, All (#22)
Here is what all governments will read, hear and understand.
"I asked general how many would die, he replied....15...."
Any intelligence service would give you a paragraph of information form those few words. Work on it with open mind, see what he said to Iran.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 19:44:26 Reply Private Reply
#25: Rotara To: Cynicom (#21)
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 20:29:00 Reply Private Reply
#26: Rotara To: Cynicom (#24)
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 20:56:45 Reply Private Reply
#27: Dakmar To: Cynicom (#16)
And never try to invade Russia in the winter.
Dakmar posted on 2019-06-21 21:11:53 Reply Private Reply
#28: Ada To: Cynicom (#24)
Would they conclude that Iran called his bluff just like Maduro did?
Ada posted on 2019-06-21 21:12:09 Reply Private Reply
#29: Cynicom To: Ada (#28)
No.
Intelligence is their business.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 21:22:30 Reply Private Reply
#30: Cynicom To: Ada, All (#28)
When Trump asked General how many would die, the General had to ask for an estimate, he had NOT given it much thought. His estimate was 150. Now, why did he not not say, a few, a lot, several, many, unknown?????
His butt was on the line. so what did he know about the target to give that figure? Intelligence people would say, he knew the target. where it was, what it was and perhaps how many men would be present. To most this would indicate that the US, knew where SAM came from exactly and from what battery. That being the case, the people of that battery would die. The military will know tomorrow for sure if the battery has been moved elsewhere or gone into hiding.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 21:37:49 Reply Private Reply
#31: Cynicom To: Rotara (#26)
Olde days good or bad leaders were safe, not anymore.
Rather than boots on the ground in Iran, Trump would take out their government in one day. Chop off the head, the snake dies.
Kim in North Korea knows this very well.
War is now very personal for those that are heads of state, bar none.
Cynicom posted on 2019-06-21 21:57:37 Reply Private Reply
#32: Rotara To: Cynicom, 4 (#31)
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 22:12:05 Reply Private Reply
#33: Rotara To: All (#32)
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Israel/Samson _Option
Rotara posted on 2019-06-21 22:31:16 Reply Private Reply
#34: randge To: Cynicom (#19)
As Patton would write so often during his illustrious career: ''To be a successful Soldier, you must know history."
randge posted on 2019-06-21 23:31:58 Reply Private Reply
#35: BTP Holdings To: randge, Cynicom (#34)
Indeed, those who fail to know history are doomed to repeat it.
Why do you think the carriers were at sea when the Japs hit Pearl Harbor?
It is simple. The U.S. had already broken the Jap Naval Code and they knew the attack was coming. They sent word by regular U.S. Mail and not by military channels. If Pearl had been on alert the attack would have had less impact and thousands of sailors and airmen would have been saved. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-06-21 23:49:57 Reply Private Reply
#36: BTP Holdings To: Ada (#20)
to get the war against Iran that
WashingtonIsrael has been salivating for.BTP Holdings posted on 2019-06-21 23:52:41 Reply Private Reply
#37: GreyLmist To: BTP Holdings (#35)
Is a false flag attack on a US Navy ship next? @ 4um Ref. >> URL Source: theduran.com >> Originally appeared at the Saker blog >> Comments:
"It is no coincidence that the century of total war coincided with the century of central banking." -- Ron Paul
GreyLmist posted on 2019-06-22 10:04:59 Reply Private Reply
#38: Ada To: BTP Holdings (#36)
Ada posted on 2019-06-23 20:28:11 Reply Private Reply
#39: BTP Holdings To: Ada (#38)
That wall is the remains of an old Roman fortress since this was the Eastern extent of the Roman Empire and the Centurions needed a safe place to sleep. ;)
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-06-23 20:47:53 Reply Private Reply