Israeli ex-SpecOps Chief: US Making a Mistake Picking a Fight With Iran, They Will Bleed For It

Yakov Kedmi, Social Activist, Israel: Hello, good evening. I'm glad to hear you, but I can't see you yet.

- Too bad. Yakov, tell us please, whether we should expect the US to take a blow at Iran? What's behind the exit from this agreement and how much military tension is hanging over the Middle East right now?

- There are two issues there. What Trump has stirred up, the basis for it is the typical American approach. They're using it in regards to Russia as well, their policy is exactly the same. It's to build economic tension that will lead to economic difficulties. And then, the angry people will overthrow the existing power and will gladly accept the leadership proposed by the Americans, along with the promises of all economic hardship coming to an end. In Iran, when they're trying to do this, they have absolutely no idea what country they're dealing with. They still naively believe that angry people start revolutions. They don't understand that revolutions or coups only happen when the country's government is weakened to the point where it can't govern. In Iran, it's a completely different situation. The Iranian government is strong, ruthless, it can harshly suppress any resistance. The Iranian government has absolutely no problem sending a hundred or a thousand people to Allah. And to imprison a thousand or ten thousand.


But Americans don't see this, what can we do? So at this point, they're trying to act by creating economic pressure. But now they have a problem with Europe. They must now rape Europe for Europeans to agree, despite their best interest, to impose sanctions on Iran. These Americans want to accomplish by applying economic pressure on Europe, on the assumption that Europe's economic relations with the US are much stronger than those with Iran. But if they'll economically blackmail and pressure Europe, they may actually get what they want. But it won't lead to any changes in Iran.

Although, Trump did hint at being ready for other methods. But here they allowed one strategic mistake. Yes, US sanctions will weaken Iran, even without Europe. But a weak Iran will be much more prone to turning to Russia and Russia will gain more influence in Iran, as the only country, China as well, but not like Russia, that supports Iran. And then, Americans will suffer one more loss, without any means of influencing Iran, at that point only Russia will have that ability.

- Is it possible to use depth bombs to strike, or some other weapons, the locations where Americans suppose development of nuclear weapons is still underway in Iran?

- First of all, no one's saying that Iran is still developing nuclear weapons. On the contrary, everyone's saying that Iran's nuclear program was frozen in 2003. After that, they only made attempts to enrich Uranium. But the entire nuclear program was closed. Uranium enrichment is also stopped with the introduction of this deal that the Americans have just broken. So as of today, no one is claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They may return to it when the agreement expires in 7 years. But today it's not happening. On the other hand, the claim made by the Pentagon 4 or 5 years ago that has lead to this agreement, is that it's not possible to militarily stop Iran's nuclear program. It's possible only through political agreements. Back when Iran was much weaker, the US' military intervention may lead to the slowing down of the project. For a year, maybe 2, 2,5 at most. That was Pentagon's estimate. Today, firstly, we have a stronger Iran, and secondly, there's no possibility for the US to take over or win over Iran. Back then, the CIA was saying, as I think they're saying now, if only Trump is paying attention to them, that any external forceful attempt to attack Iran will not lead to a change in power, but will only strengthen it. While the consequences of this military strike can be very unexpected and as a result, these are not my words but what the CIA said back then, as a result of the military engagement, the US' position in the region may quickly deteriorate.

- Should we continue to expect Israel's attacks on Syria, where, as they think, Iran's facilities are located?

- First of all, not as we think, but 20 Iranian missiles were launched from Syria's territory towards Israel just last night. And it caused a response from the Israeli Air Force. So it's not something that we think, these missiles really do exist and they get launched. But the situation is, like our Defense Minister, Lieberman, said, we consider the incident resolved. We do not wish to continue a military stand-off. We don't have any aggressive intentions towards Iran or to change anything in Iran. And the same goes for Syria. While Iran was acting in Syria, participating in a civil war on Assad's side, this did not and will not bother Israel. But when Iran began making attempts to use Syria's territory for attacks on Israel, that's when we intervened. Same as when Iran is trying to arm Hezbollah in Libya with weapons that we consider dangerous.

Here's the current situation: We delivered a heavy blow to the Iranian infrastructure in Syria. Now, it's Iran's turn. If they accept the proposal of our Defense Minister regarding the incident being settled then it will be over. If they respond otherwise then we'll face a new stage that might lead to armed clashes and even a war. It's a usual thing in the Middle East. In 1967, a war broke out because we lost control over the situation. The sides thought their actions would make them stronger without triggering a war. But then, the war became inevitable. It's a possible scenario.

I'd like to remind you that the Middle Eastern leaders often believe that a war or a conflict won't end well but they are so hysterical that they can't avoid an armed conflict due to their internal instability. Our issue might be over soon. But if Iranians continue to make mistakes like launching 20 missiles at Israel last night we'll be on the brink of a new war in the Middle East.

- That's horrible. Thank you, Yakov.

Igor Morozov, member of Federation Council: A small comment on what Yakov has said. Neither the US nor Trump personally is interested whether Iran follows the joint action plan or not. Whether it has nuclear weapons or not. Igor Morozov, member of Federation Council. Trump has already chosen his long-term strategy against Iran And it means that he wants to shift the geopolitical balance of the region. And the most dangerous part: The negotiations held by the US military and diplomats regarding the engagement of Egyptian, Saudi, and all other monarchies' armed forces in the Syrian theater of operations could trigger a military catastrophe in the Middle East.

- Americans do not have money for war.

- Regarding…

Igor Morozov, member of Federation Council: The USA allocated $380 billion for overseas military operations. Why? Here's your war money.

- They allocated $60 billion for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

- Oh please, they know how to get money.

- They have a machine that prints it! There's no way they run out of cash.

Igor Morozov, member of Federation Council: They will profit from the engagement of those armies.

Sergey Mikheev: We may run out of money because we don't print it. They won't. Money doesn't grow on trees. Either that or we plant the wrong ones.