The West is engaging in a potentially catastrophic strategy of brinksmanship in its support for both Ukraine and Israel, argues Chris Bambery  

We are living at the most dangerous moment for humanity and our planet. In my life, I can only recall one other time which is comparable – in fact it was even more dangerous – the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The United States and the Soviet Union were on the edge of a mutually destructive nuclear war. I can recall, as a seven-year-old fearing that all would end in a flash. Luckily for all, the US president, John F. Kennedy, and the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, resorted to diplomacy, not war and saved the day. 

Today, whoever is sunning the show in Washington, in these final days of Vacant Joe Biden’s administration, has no understanding of diplomacy. That’s something alien to the hapless Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken. 

Whoever is running affairs in the White House – I suspect it’s the US deep state – made a decision to bring us to the brink of nuclear war when it permitted Ukraine to fire missiles into Russia. On Tuesday, Ukraine fired eight US-supplied longer-range missiles, Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms), at Russian territory for the first time, 24 hours after the Biden administration gave it permission to do so. 

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, immediately accused America of escalating the conflict: ‘That Atacms was used repeatedly overnight against Bryansk Region is of course a signal that they [the US] want escalation.’ ‘And without the Americans, use of these high-tech missiles, as [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has said many times, is impossible.’ 

Lavrov added that Russia would ‘proceed from the understanding’ that the missiles were operated by ‘American military experts’. ‘We will be taking this as a renewed face of the Western war against Russia and we will react accordingly’, he told a press conference at the G20 in Rio de Janeiro. 

In London, the Starmer government jumped to attention and dutifully followed Washington, with Defence Secretary John Healey ringing his Ukrainian counterpart on Tuesday night to say Ukraine could also fire British Storm Shadow missiles into Russia – which they did. 

The Ukraine war 

Lavrov is correct in saying that while a Ukrainian finger might have pressed the final button, these missiles were set up to be ready for that by US and UK personnel using US and UK intelligence to target Russia. Russia responded with an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile strike on a Ukrainian missile plant in Dnipro. 

Washington tried to downplay this by claiming Putin does not have sufficient of these missiles to carry out many more such attacks. Putin responded by stating: ‘The tests [of the missile system] have passed successfully, and I congratulate you all on that. As has been said already, we’ll be continuing these tests, including in combat conditions, depending on the situation and nature of threats being posed to Russia’s security, especially considering that we have enough of such items, such systems ready for use in stock.’ 

At the same press conference, the Russian strategic-missile-forces commander Sergei Karakayev said this of these missiles: ‘Depending on the objectives and the range of this weapon, it can strike targets on the entire territory of Europe, which sets it apart from other types of long-range precision-guided weapons.’ The missile which hit Dnipro carried a conventional war head, but it’s designed to carry a cluster of tactical nuclear war heads which would bring destruction to an area of a radius of fifty miles – think London, where I am writing this. 

Putin has repeatedly said US and European ballistic missile attacks could lead Russia to respond with nuclear weapons. The US and British  governments are fully aware of this but, hey! 

You do not have to support Putin or his criminal invasion of Ukraine to understand this is a very, very dangerous game of brinkmanship. Within the US, it is the common belief that the administration is escalating its proxy war in Ukraine prior to Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. Trump has promised to end US military and financial support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Brazil and China have offered to host peace talks. 

The missile strikes will not alter a war of attrition in which Ukraine has run out of troops. Russia is advancing on the crucial eastern front relentlessly and is in the process of retaking the territory Ukraine captured in the Kursk region. 

When this war began, we were assured Russia’s economy was a basket case and it did not have the military ability to counter Ukraine, armed and trained by the West. We were lied to again. The Russian economy is growing at a rate Starmer and Rachel Reeves would die for. It outproduces the US and Europe in artillery shells, crucial to this sort of meat-grinder war. As I wrote here earlier this month: ‘Joe Biden’s greatest achievement will have been to draw China, Russia, Iran and North Korea ever closer in the face of US aggression.’ In that article, I pointed out that a number of key members of the incoming Trump administration seem to think joining Benjamin Netanyahu in a war on Iran is a wizard wheeze. 

Israel 

Let’s just leave aside that Israel cannot defeat Hamas or Hezbollah, instead using its air force to pulverise Gaza and to enforce genocide and doing similar in Lebanon. But Hezbollah is striking into Israel every day, putting its most important port, Haifa, on the front line, with major implications for Israel’s shaky economy. The Houthis have hit Israel with its missiles, while Iran’s October attack was far more successful than we were told; there’s a pattern here. 

Major Peter Mitchell is a strategist and air-defence expert, West Point instructor, and Modern War Institute contributor. Writing about the October Iranian missile attack on Israel in The Modern War Institute at West Point he points out: 

‘Spectacular footage of the Iranian attack over Tel Aviv shows how few of the missiles were intercepted by Israeli air defense as they rained down in a series of waves over forty-five minutes. Viewers can see how the Iranian missiles all appear to be traveling in a steady trajectory at the same speed (not tumbling) and impact in a general target area – all indicators that they were not intercepted. Given Israel’s operational parameters and its preference for intercepting practically everything that threatens a populated area, let alone its most important economic center, concern about stockpiles appear to have influenced Israeli decision making. 

The seeming reluctance to engage the dozens of missiles impacting downtown Tel Aviv is a strong indicator that the Israeli air defense is operating on low missile protocol (in Nato brevity code, ‘Browning’; in informal air-defence parlance, ‘lomo’). This includes choosing to selectively not engage incoming missiles predicted to hit relatively low-value strategic targets to save them for more important locations. According to reports, the Israelis intercepted around 50% of the incoming tracks, as opposed to over 95% during the April attack. The Israelis are keenly aware of how many interceptors they have and how many ballistic missiles the Iranians probably have, and will take actions to preserve their stockpile as best they can.’ 

We were also told that the Israeli attack on Iran which followed was a huge success. Far from it: ‘Hours prior to the Israeli operation, Russian officials alerted Iran to the impending strikes, sharing intelligence about potential targets and Israeli manoeuvres, according to sources who spoke with Sky News Arabia … Despite sustaining damage to military installations in Tehran, Khuzestan, and Ilam provinces – resulting in the tragic loss of two Iranian soldiers – Iranian authorities reported that their air defenses intercepted many of the attacking missiles.’ 

The same article tells us something else we have been kept in the dark about. Iran’s air defences were far more successful when Israel attacked it than we have been led to believe: 

‘In response to the initial wave of attacks, Iranian forces deployed medium-range surface-to-air missiles [SAMs] to counter the Israeli missiles. For subsequent strikes, Iran utilized long-range defense systems capable of intercepting missiles from distances exceeding 100 kilometers – an important advancement. 

‘Among Iran’s air-defense arsenal are upgraded Russian-made S-300PMU-2 systems, known for their advanced interception capabilities. While the standard 48N6E2 missiles have a range of 200 kilometers, these systems are reportedly compatible with the more advanced 48N6DM missiles, which boast interception ranges of up to 250 kilometers and are designed to counter hypersonic threats… 

The sophisticated integration of these ground defenses with cutting-edge electronic warfare and radar systems further bolsters Iran’s defensive posture in the region.’ 

My understanding is that the first strike was supposed to take out the air defences to allow two waves of aircraft to bomb Teheran and other targets. Both were called off because of the failure of the first strike. 

If this is the case, the West should sit up and take notice. Any further Israeli attack on Iran, or any US attack, would have to use ballistic missiles. Not only could that mean Iran would fire everything it had at Israel (along with Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Iraqi militias) believing this would overwhelm Israeli air defences; but Russian personnel are in Iran and could be targeted. Putin is unlikely to join in a direct war, but he would continue to aid its ally. 

It’s said Donald Trump is a businessman who takes decisions based on that. Ukraine faces collapse and Israel isn’t winning, but is prepared to take the world down with it. Both conflicts have the potential to escalate into nuclear war. I am not pinning my hopes on Trump’s business sense, however. Here in the UK and across the world, hope lies in the powerful movement in support of Palestine. Hope lies in growing opposition to the continuance of the war in Ukraine in Europe and the US. 

How Israel would respond to a major attack on its cities and its military bases is not such a mystery. Netanyahu would believe this was its Armageddon moment and reach for the nuclear button. Think Jimmy Cagney as Cody Jarrett at the end of the 1949 movie White Heat. 

He flees to the top of a gigantic gas storage tank. After he is shot, the dying Jarrett fires at the tank, which bursts into flames. He shouts, ‘Made it, Ma! Top of the world!’ before the tank explodes.