Patriot Missiles Deployed to Syrian Border in Turkey: Another Ominous Sign of Impending War with Iran

Why are Patriot missiles being deployed in Turkey along the Syrian border?  Has NATO been threatened or directly attacked by Syria?  Does Syria pose a real missile threat against Turkey?  What is the real purpose behind this deployment?  Our analysis suggests the only rational threat to justify such a deployment would be clandestine preparations for a larger war with Iran.

For starters, NATO is under no threat from Syria and the Assad regime has zero interest in shooting missiles into Turkey.  Assad knows that Turkey and NATO have vastly superior forces.  To provoke a war with Turkey would be suicide for Assad.  One may point to the limited cross-border fire into Turkey some months ago as rationale, but as previous posts on B2W have shown; this too is not a valid argument.  The Patriot missile is designed to intercept medium and long-range missiles and rockets, not small, short-range munitions such as those that did hit Turkey.  Further, the evidence is not clear-cut on whether the mortars were fired accidentally by Syrian state forces or intentionally by insurgents trying to provoke Turkey to enter into the war against Assad.  The bottom line is that the Patriot missile is not designed or suited to intercept small artillery and mortar rounds such as landed in Turkey.  Other, smaller, tactical air defense systems, similar to the Phalanx or Iron Dome systems would be much more appropriate and cost effective for this mission.  However, NATO could argue that an errant SCUD missile could enter into Turkey and thus, justify the need to have anti-missile batteries staged along its border.  Again though, Syrian state forces will not dare launch a SCUD that has the possibility of landing inside of Turkey.  Even if Assad believed he could target a rebel training or refugee camp, the gain would simply not justify the cost of offensive action against Turkey and by default, NATO and the United States.

This leaves two possible situations.  The first is that NATO and Turkey fear SCUD missiles could fall into the hands of rebels (Islamic extremists) and be fired into neighboring countries such as Turkey.  The idea that rebels could end up controlling such a weapon is indeed scary, but no mention will be made in the press of this since it contradicts the “freedom fighter” image Washington has so desperately attempted to create.  Just as in Libya, these “freedom fighters” are no friends of the West and will turn their guns on Americans and American interests as soon as they finish with Assad.  Considering known terrorists may actually possess captured chemical weapons and potentially could gain a delivery platform such as a SCUD, very ugly scenarios involving Israel come to mind.  Nonetheless, the rebel use of a SCUD against Turkey still holds little likelihood; especially, considering Turkey has not only taken in many Syrian refugees, but also armed and trained many of the insurgents.  As such, we assign a very low probability of this scenario occurring and therefore it must be ruled out as a justification for placing Patriot missiles in Turkey’s border with Syria.

By using a process of logical deduction and elimination, it is clear the rationale provided to the media by the White House is not a reasonable explanation if not outright fictitious.  Therefore, other more convincing motivations must be at work.  Per B2W’s extensive analysis on Israel’s war plans against Iran (for B2W’s Israel posts go to:, it is essential Syria must be first taken out of the fight.  B2W’s exclusive analysis on Israel’s war plans show that once Syria is sufficiently reduced, the second kinetic phase of the war, directly against Iran, will commence.  As CIA backed terrorists take apart Assad’s air defense installations and attrit and wear down Syrian state and Hezbollah forces, Washington is quietly moving assets into position for what looks like the predicted surprise offensive against Iran.  Critical to this prepositioning would be a missile shield to protect Israel and Turkey (a NATO member) against any retaliation from Iran.  Placing missiles in Iraq may be possible, but much more difficult and entirely unjustifiable just as it would be in other Gulf countries.  As such, to provide Turkey reasonable assurances that whether or not it actively supports and attack against Iran, its passive acquiescence can be bought by providing a missile shield and plausible deniability.

Weighing the known evidence the only likely scenario that reasonably justifies the costs of deploying Patriot missiles in Turkey along Syria’s border is preparations for a war with Iran.  Outside of this context, neither the likelihood nor the threat can explain why an anti-missile shield was established in Turkey.  As such, one must conclude that the US and Israel are one step closer to commencing an attack against Iran that will lead to disaster for all parties.  Combined with other movements of naval and air forces beyond the scope of this article, this is an ominous sign indeed for peace and stability in the region.

By: Guiles Hendrik