Syria crisis: warplanes spotted in Cyprus as tensions rise in Damascus
Source: The Guardian
Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain's Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.
Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca on Monday told the Guardian that they had seen C-130 transport planes from their cockpit windows as well as small formations of fighter jets on their radar screens, which they believe had flown from Europe.
Residents near the British airfield, a sovereign base since 1960, also say activity there has been much higher than normal over the past 48 hours.
If an order to attack targets in Syria is given, Cyprus is likely to be a hub of the air campaign. The arrival of warplanes suggests that advanced readiness – at the very least – has been ordered by Whitehall as David Cameron, Barack Obama and European leaders step up their rhetoric against Bashar al-Assad, whose armed forces they accuse of carrying out the chemical weapons attack last Wednesday that killed many hundreds in eastern Damascus.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-warplanes-cyprus-tensions-damascus
= new reply since forum marked as read
I hate to tell you, in the reports I have read, there are nothing but planning that Military people do all the time. Most such plans involved known attack routes, for those are the best (and in some cases the only) routes.
When it comes to Syria, unless we use Carriers, the options are limited. There is no way you want Israel is Join in on the attack, Assad will claim he is fighting Israeli aggression and demand support from all Arabs INCLUDING those attacking him. Worse, those Arabs attacking him would have to switch sides just to show they still oppose to Israel AND support the Palestinians. Thus Israel is out, so are any bases in Israel.
Iraq has said it will NOT permit any attack from its territory, and given how little control the central Government of Iraq has over Iraq, I have my doubts if they could give permission if they wanted to. Saudi Arabia bases are to far away, thus you have to look to Iran (who will NOT agree), Greece (who has reason to disagree, mostly starting with the word "Turkey"
, Cyprus and Turkey.
Egypt is to far away, and under its own problems, being a base for a US attack on Syria will NOT help Egypt in its present condition. Libya is to far away, so is Italy. Russia wants no part of it, so anything north of Turkey and Iran can not be used as base of attack. Thus it comes down to Cyprus and Turkey.
Turkey is still involved in Cyprus which makes these two countries NOT willing to talk together and worse will NOT want to work together. On the other hand Turkey wants a freer hands as to its own Kurds and willing to extent its power over the rest of Kurdistan, including parts in Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Sorry, Cyprus and Turkey are the two possible bases, and thus the comments about the Turks and they refusal to work with the rest of NATO as to Syria. If you read the report, that is all it says, and anyone who understand geography and politics could see that for themselves without reading this paper.
Thus this was NOT much of a Secret, to anyone who understand geography, politics and modern military capacity.
Mortar fire from the Greek Cyprus could end the usefulness of these bases. Now, Cyprus is independent of Greece, but Greece supports the Greeks on Cyprus. Both can object, and object enough to prevent the use of either base.
The range of M101A1 105mm Howitzers is over 11 KM, Greece is known to have them, No reports on Cyprus but I would not be surprised:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M101_howitzer
But Cyprus does have 54 Italian Model 56 pack 105mm Howitzer, which uses the same Ammo as the M101A1 but can be broken down to be hauled by mules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_Mod_56
Cyprus also has 12 155 mm TRF-1 Howitzers, with a range of 24 KM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRF1
Now, these do sound like very small numbers, but enough to drop enough rounds to close down both bases if Cyprus wants to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_National_Guard
The issue is given the hostility between Greece and Turkey AND Greek Cyprus and Turkish Cyprus, what will NATO offer to Greece and Cyprus to stay "Neutral"? Now, both know they can be hit hard if they object to NATO flying out of those bases by firing into those bases, but it is the strongest card both hold as to Turkey. Remember Greece OPPOSED the war against Qaddafi and thus Greek Bases could NOT be used in that attack (But Greece did NOT use its veto over outside military action by NATO against Qaddafi).
Thus Greece AND Cyprus are question marks in any attack on Syria. I suspect the reason neither were mentioned in the report cited, was that was already understood and thus ignored in the hope NATO could bring them along (or that they would NOT do anything to prevent such an attack, such as calling out the Cyprus National Guard and putting its Artillery in concealed position near the bases, forcing NATO to make a decision, take them out OR accept the veto of Cyprus).
Note, NATO may believe that Cyprus is more afraid of being hit by NATO and thus would NOT veto using the bases for such an attack.
Now, the treaty with Britain gives Cyprus no veto over how the bases are to be used, but that is minor if Cyprus decides to object anyway. Cyprus has enough of an Army to do the damage needed to make those bases useless until its own artillery is taken out. Will NATO want to attack Cyprus for objecting to the use of the Bases in the attack on Syria? I suspect NATO is hoping they can buy Greece and Cyprus off, but what will both settle for? Remember Greece is in economic crisis thus aid to Greece and Cyprus may buy them off.
The above is the carrot, the stick is NATO will support Turkey over the Division of Cyprus. something both Greece and Cyprus will not want. Thus Greece and Cyprus may NOT object, but I am pointing out they can for they have the means.
Last edited Tue Aug 27, 2013, 04:53 PM - Edit history (3)
As I commented above, Cyprus CAN veto what is done from those bases, by simply putting rounds from its Artillery onto the base (or more accurately, showing that it can and is willing to do so). NATO would then knock those artillery pieces out (or at least try to), but that would divert air power from hitting Syria, which may be worth it for Cyprus. i.e. take the hit for Syria, thus spread out the attack so Syria can better deal with the effect of that attack.
Now, Iran is the main source of oil for not only Turkey, but Greece AND Cyprus, Thus all three have a good reason (to keep those oil supplies coming) to oppose any attack on Syria.
Now, my understanding of the treaty in regards to those two bases, Cyprus can NOT object to how Britain uses them. The problem, modern jets need a relatively clean runway and Artillery hitting the air base will through enough FOD (Foreign objects and debris) to make the runway unusable). That would violent the treaty with Britain. but Britain is NOT supplying Greece and Cyprus with oil (Iran is).
Before any attack is made from Cyprus, not only Cyprus but Greece will have to be on board and that requires Europe to bale them out of their present economic problems (Something Germany does not want to do, for the rest of the PIIGS, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain will demand similar assistance).
In some ways, the US and Europe are caught in a bind, they do not want to help the PIIGS, but that may be the price to pay to attack Assad. The problems of Italy appears to have eased over the last couple of years, did that have something to do with the need for Italian bases for the war against Libya? Was that aid enough? It appears it was enough to prevent Italy from dropping the Euro, but that may just be a temporary situation. Portugal, Ireland and Spain are to far away to be able to use Syria to their advantage, but Greece in many ways is the key, followed by Italy. Can the US convinced Europe to provide what Greece, Cyprus and Italy wants in exchange for supporting the war against Syria?
Remember, Greece is the worse case in regards to its economy. It is dependent on Iranian oil. Will Greece and its closest ally Cyprus risk that oil? Will Turkey? I always give the example of Italy during WWI and WWII. Prior to WWI Italy had an alliance with Germany, but decided NOT to honor the treaty in 1914, instead joining the Western Allies in 1915. Various reasons for this has been given, but that Italy's main source of energy t that time period, Coal, came from British mines seems to have been the biggest factor.
British coal production peaked right after WWI, and started to fall afterward. In the mid 1930s, Italy saw its coal supply shift from Britain (where Italy was finding it harder to obtain the coal it needed from) to Germany. Italy opposed Germany's first move on Austria in 1934, but as Italy's coal supply shifted, Italy stopped its opposition to Germany annexation of Austria and became a loyal ally of Germany, for Germany had become Italy's main source of energy. During the US invasion of Italy, Italy was able to obtain coal and oil from the US and switched sides. Southern Italy, the least dependent on foreign coal supplies quickly fell to the Western Allies, but Northern Italy took a lot longer, due to that area of Italy was heavily dependent on German Coal (In fact Germany held more territory in Italy on the day Germany Surrendered then Germany held in Germany).
While other factors were involved in Italy's shifts in allies from 1914 to 1945, energy seems to have been the single most important factor. The same with Greece, Turkey and Cyprus today. Energy is they main concern and today that means oil. and right now that is Iranian Oil. This may also explains Turkey's position, it is also dependent on Iranian Natural gas and oil supplies. That does not want to upset its energy supplier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Irans_Oil_Exports.png
Turkey
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/05/03/301604/turkeys-iran-oil-imports-hits-new-high/
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/04/30/301006/turkey-to-continue-iran-gas-imports/
Thus, while the leadership of Turkey hates Assad, they are dependent on Iranian oil, They may want Assad out, but NOT at the cost of losing their supply of oil. Russia exports a lot of its oil via the the Bosporus and Dardanelles, but most of that oil it bound for western Europe not Turkey or Greece. If Turkey has to turn off its supply from Iran, it must then switch to Russian oil, which means less oil for Western Europe. Western Europe will NOT want that, especially, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Southern France, where most of that Russian oil is heading for. Those same countries were willing give up their supply from Libya in exchange for supplies from Russia and Saudi Arabia, but will they accept a cut back of Russian and Saudi Arabian Oil, so that Turkey can be convinced to support an attack on Syria??
Sorry, Turkey can NOT afford to attack Syria. Nether can Greece or Cyprus afford such an attack. US Carriers can launch a short attack but sooner or later the long supply line from the US to those carriers will cut back the level of the attack.
Furthermore, Libya has been called the Tactician's dreamland and the Quartermaster's hell. It is open desert, with one road along the coast. Except along that Coast Road, the only way to maneuver is by foot, horse Camel or tracked vehicle (i.e. Tanks and Armored Personal Carriers). Since supplies must come by truck, whoever controls that highway controls Libya for any maneuver unit needs supplies thus control of the highway is the key to Libya. Defenders in a desert have a lack of cover, thus defenses are easily detected and bombed from the air. This was the problem with Qaddafi, every time he sent up a defensive line, it was quickly detected and bombed. If the defenders did abandon one defensive location and set up another near by, there was no way to hide it from aerial observation and subsequent bombing, Worse, once in a defensive position, the attack force had enough track vehicles to maneuver around the Defensive position and attack it from the rear. At that point the defenders either had to surrender or abandon the defensive position.
Syria is different, first you have mountains and trees. Both provide cover for land forces. The ground is fairly solid, so ground forces are NOT forced to stay close to the sea and the only paved road, thus ground forces can maneuver. Air Power is still important, but it is possible to undo most of the advantages of air power given the ability to find cover AND the ability to move in all directions, not just along a coastal highway. Worse, the population most loyal to Assad are those closest to the Coast, his opponents are in the far desert. Syria will NOT be another Libya, but another Afghanistan. A quick victory, followed by the real war, a long guerrilla war till some sort of deal is made between the people of the various groups in Syria and whoever ends up ruling Syria.
Sorry, I think Obama wants to attack Syria, I think many of the people around him wants to attack Syria, but the Military see nothing but problems given that in addition to opposition from Iran, you will have opposition from Greece, Cyprus AND Turkey. All on dependent on Iranian oil. Russia also back Iran, and it can put restrictions on the attack by simply stop exporting oil. Russia will suffer severe problems for its main export is oil and natural gas and thus its main source of foreign currency (Which it needs) but such a cut back is its biggest weapon.
Thus I suspect the people in the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense keep saying NO, you crazy, but no one is listening to them for they see Russia, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus accepting the attack on Syria for the cost to object exceeds anything any of them will gain by objecting. The other side of the argument is, unless they object on Syria, but the time it comes to Iran, they may be out of time. i.e. If the US attacks Syria, is it time to force the world to make up its mind, either support US aggression OR fight for the concept of National Sovereignty.
If the nations of the World do not decide to do so over Syria, then the US will go to its next target, which is Iran and total control over the oil in the World (Which is the real aim of this campaign for who controls oil controls the world). Thus Russia is the key. Russia is to big and its oil fields to deep inside Siberia for the US to even hope of directly controlling them. Thus the constant attack on Putin and Russia since 2000 for with the election of Putin all hope of controlling Russian Oil died. Under Yeltsin, the control over Russia was weak and thus Russia barely controlled its own oil industry, let alone have a say in who control, and thus who gets Russian oil. Under Putin, he does have a say and can cut off who gets Russian oil and Natural Gas, if he is willing to accept the lost of funds such an action will incur (and the hardship in Russia that will incur due to the cut off of funds, AND the result of massive US funds going to opposition groups, except of course the Communist party, which is the largest opposition party to Putin, but would support a cut off of oil exports if that meant the long term benefit of Russia).
Thus, the real question is what will Putin do if the US attacks Syria? No one expects any military actions, but he can shut off oil exports and upset the world wide oil market. If Putin would do so, and had the support of Turkey, Greece and Iran (and Venezuela) then the US will face a disaster at home (a spike in the price of gasoline) as the price of attacking Syria. Obama would protest and make threats, but Russia is immune to most US threats except for a Nuclear Strike and the US would not do such a strike for that would make the price of oil go even higher. I can see Putin taking to Obama and Obama saying "I will order a Military attack on you". and Putin says "Go Ahead, but the way how will the American people like $20 for a gallon of Gasoline?".
I suspect that is what the Department of Energy and Department of Defense are saying, but no one wants to hear that. i.e. Putin's biggest weapon is an oil embargo, and any military attacks done to undo that embargo will drive the price of gasoline even higher. If Putin does an oil embargo and he gets Iran AND Venezuela to go along, what does the US do? Saudi Arabia can NOT replace all three oil suppliers and the US "Boom" in oil is only going to US Domestic supply.
The downside for Putin, is a loss of foreign revenue and a greater push for fracking in the US, with the resulting increase in US Domestic Oil Supplies. Thus a Russian oil embargo by itself probably will NOT be enough to get what Putin needs, but if Iran AND Venezuela joins in, that is to much for the rest of the world to replace (and Iraq may also join in, unofficially, but making sure "domestic terrorists" shut down the exports of Iraqi oil).
The biggest down side is the Countries that join in on the Embargo, will see every other oil exporter reap a huge profit at their expense. Thus an embargo will NOT last that long (90 days max, like the original Arab oil embargo of 1973). Cheating will be done, AND accusation of cheating will be made by all of the participates about each other, thus 90 days Embargo is about all that can be expected, but in my opinion that would be enough to throw the whole world into a Recession AND massive domestic unrest in much of the world.