NATO controlling Turkish missile batteries - interview
Robles: This is John Robles. I am speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner of Stop NATO International.
What can you tell our listeners about the deployment of Patriot Missile Batteries on the Turkish-Syrian border?
Rozoff: We know as of today, at least Moscow time Tuesday that inspection teams are being deployed by NATO to Turkey on the Syrian border to evaluate sites for placing NATO Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Interceptor Batteries. We don’t know for certain but it appears as though they are German and Dutch teams, because Germany and the Netherlands are the only two NATO countries in Europe that have the Patriot Advanced-3 Capability Missiles.
Robles: Does this mean that there is going to be permanent NATO troop deployments in Turkey or are these batteries going to be controlled by Turkish forces?
Rozoff: The argument will be made, that the Turkish armed forces have some over-sight or rights to inspect but they will not be controlling the batteries, which will be controlled by military personnel from the respective countries that are sending them there and those appear to be Germany and Netherland.
A couple things real quickly: we should recall that in the beginning of this year under NATO auspices the United States deployed what is called an X-Band Transportable Missile Radar to southeastern Turkey and this is something that is part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach Program that NATO endorsed at its summit in Portugal in 2010 but announced here in Chicago in May to have achieved initial operational capacity or capability, and this is part of the general European-wide and Mediterranean Sea-wide interceptor missiles system the United States is installing.
And in addition to that NATO was consolidated two land command sites in Western Europe and is shifting them to Turkey. So, what we are seeing is with the deployment of the Patriot Missiles, we are seeing a major shift by NATO from its founding countries or countries that joined the Alliance shortly after it is foundation, that are countries like the Netherlands or Italy or Germany, have been shifted increasingly to what NATO Secretary General Rasmussen, again the other day, referred to as NATO’s south eastern border by which he means the Syrian border, the border of Syria and Turkey. So this is part of a process of NATO constantly expanding to the south and to the east. And in the case of Turkey because it is the southernmost and certainly the easternmost member of the Alliance we are seeing a shift of interceptor missile radar, interceptor missiles, what are called theater interceptor missiles like the Patriots, and at the same time moving a major land command to Turkey from Western Europe. This is all part and parcel of the shift.
Robles: So what are the public reasons as opposed to the real reasons? The real reasons are eastward and southward NATO expansion, if I understand correctly?
Rozoff: Yes. That is correct. But we also have to remember that South-Eastern Turkey borders not only Syria but Iran and is close to Iraq. So, what we are seeing again, this is again just since the last summer, we have seen increased Turkish military penetration/incursions into Northern Iraq, ostensibly to hunt down fighters with the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, and these include air-strikes as well, as well as moving infantry into Iraq in clear violation of the sovereigntyof Iraq, and at the same time of course starting in August of last year with Turkey moving not only troops but armored vehicles up to the Syrian border. And this is, if you will a triangle, where Turkey, Iran and Syria come together and not terribly far from the Iraqi border.
It’s been my contention, as you know, and we’ve talked about this in previous shows, that NATO is using Turkey as its springboard and its strike force in the greater Middle East particularly in the area we talked about, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Robles: Now you watch all the troop movements, you watch the buildups very carefully. What’s your make on plans to invade Iran and Syria, for lack of a better word… And Israel… how do you think Israel in the current situation in Gaza has been affected or has been promoted by NATO and the West etc.?
Rozoff: I am glad you asked that question because the pieces do come together and one of them is the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip of earlier this month, so called Operation Pillar of Defense, began exactly 2 days after, by my count: a 23 day, military exercise between the United States and Israel, was held in Israel.
The military exercise was called Austere Challenge 2012, and it included the testing of no fewer than 5 different interceptor missile systems, 2 American, 3 Israeli, the Americans, which are the Patriot Advance Capability-3 Interceptors, and sea-based, so-called Aegis Class Standard Missile 3 Interceptor, of the sort that, in a land-based version, are going to be deployed in Romania and Poland.
I don’t have to tell your listeners, in the case of Poland, a country that borders Russia, and Romania, a country that faces Russia across the Black Sea, there are to be as many as… at least I should say, 48 of the Standard Missile 3s deployed in those two countries.
Four years ago the United States based or deployed its first X-Band Transportable Missile Radar in Israel and that is one that has, according to the US Armed Forces Missile Defense Agency, a range of 2,900 miles, depending on how it is directed. That is enough to take in the entire western border of Russia for example, all the way to the Arctic Circle. It is exactly the same model that was placed in Turkey earlier this year.
There is now discussion incidentally of placing them in the Persian Gulf, possibly in Bahrain or Qatar, and also in South-East Asia. There is one already in Japan, but there is discussion of about 1 or 2 in the Philippines. So, we are talking about what Russian officials correctly have identified as a Global Interceptor Missile System.
Robles: This is not a defensive system, is it? I mean, from whom?
Rozoff: By no means is it a defense system, it has two basically eminently non-defensive capabilities, one of them is as part of what is potentially a first strike system, which means: this goes with the interceptor missiles as well as radar that accompanies them, and in both instances, what was envisioned originally by the Ronal Reagan administration in early 1980s and referred to as the Strategic Defense Initiative, what most people know by the nick-name of Star Wars, though billed as a defensive system as its very name indicates, nevertheless, as it was viewed at the time and should be viewed now because now what we are seeing is the implementation, the initial implementation of that system.
And what it potentially gives to the United States and its allies is the potential to after having first launched devastating first strikes, either in conventional or nuclear attacks against the target nation, to then be able to knockout whichever missiles have survived that first strike and any retaliatory attacks, with interceptor missiles that can knock them out. That is the real threat.
Now whether that is to be used in that fashion or whether it’s a kind of a blackmail gambit to let the country know that, should the US and its allies strike first, let’s talk about Iran, in the first place, that if any missiles are still left in a silo or any portable missiles haven’t been targeted, then the so-called missile shield would be capable of knocking those missiles out of the air before they could effectively be fired in retaliation.
Robles: Eliminating a counter-strike from their targets completely.
It would be the equivalent of somebody out in the street firing at you from a bullet-proof car.
Robles: You were listening to the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff, the Owner of Stop NATO International. You can find