Bush/Cheney, US War Doctrine & Plans to Nuke Iran

[gilipolla]

http://endempire.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Prepare to oppose a nuclear attack on Iran!

The eerie silence over the Iran crisis is I think portentous and suggestive of danger for us all. The evidence is clear enough : a statement from Strategic Command has effectively confirmed ex-CIA agent Philip Giraldi’s claim in The American Conservative( 1st August 2005) that Cheney had requested that Statcom prepare for nuclear strikes against Iran(See Nuclear War against Iran- Michel Chossudovsky, 3rd January at globalresearch.ca). Given forty years of agitation in this country against nuclear weapons you may be excused for thinking that people would be shouting from the rooftops about this mortal threat to us all: but the people don’t know and evidently the likes of CND and Stop the War don’t want to know. Are these organisations then guilty of criminal neglect in terms of not carrying out their self-proclaimed tasks? Undoubtedly. Are they in fact integrated into the empire and using their influence to clear the way for their masters? Who knows? The reality we face is , however, implacable in its awfulness; we are heading inexorably towards the tragic denouement of the imperial war machine: those who are itching to use “those wonderful weapons “, as Madeleine Albright would have it, have manoeuvred themselves into precisely the place where they can finally achieve what they have been bragging about for so long. Before discussing what action we should take to try and prevent disaster I will try to summarise the method in this madness in order to shake up the attitude of the sceptics, the “they wouldn’t do a thing like that tendancy” which, apart from simple treachery, is the main obstacle to action.

A nuclear attack on Iran would be a crime of inconceivable proportions and totally unpredictable outcomes. It would be opposed by Russia, as well as China, contrary to mendacious press reports from who have an obvious motive in convincing us otherwise.

Do the USA and Britain have the means to carry out such an attack?

A thousand times over.

Have they a history of war crimes including nuclear war crimes?

Clearly.

Could the criminals involved be said to have a longstanding predisposition to this type of action; is it a crime fortold?

Clearly it is. Anecdotal evidence shows the likes of Richard Perle as braggarts when it comes to nuclear weapons. Geoff Hoon made clear Britain’s predisposition to the use of these weapons. But the evidence is much more plain than that- the US nuclear doctrine has been transformed in order to put pre-emptive first strike nuclear attacks on the order of the day: hence the opposition of 1500 US scientists who have petitioned against it (http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/). All these modifications to US nuclear doctrine have been carefully monitored by journalists like Gordon Prather.( see antiwar.com)

Do they have a motive?

Obviously they think they do; Iran has been placed in “the axis of evil”.

In terms of the Bush doctrine is Iran with us or against us?

Iran is a large nation with a young, educated population and rich in natural resources. Left undisturbed one would expect it to become the dominant power in the Middle east. It has formed close diplomatic and commercial ties with countries ranging from China to Venezuela. It is planning to set up a euro spot market in oil which many see as a mortal threat to the US dollar. It appears to be prepared to take on the US head on. The US, as long as it conceives of itself as an empire, has a clear interest in eliminating a dangerous and resourceful rival.

Do the Anglo- Americans have opportunity?

This is, if you like, a silly question. Through the manipulation of media and terror ( see Ivashov’s speech translated on this blog ) they create opportunity. Iran is a virtual enemy in the virtual world of CNN, FOX and the BBC and the potential virtual author of another, unfortunately all too real, massacre of innocents.

So there you have it: means , history, predisposition, motive and opportunity.

But the sceptics object: “ Is this a reasonable thing to do?” “What do they have to gain from such recklessness?” “ Wouldn’t they themselves end up the losers themselves?”

I would answer: “It is the logic of a madman, the psycho-pathology of an elite who are themselves the expression of an empire which is doomed”

Let’s look at their predicament

They are obviously losing the war in Iraq. If they stay much longer their army will cease to exist. The US is bankrupt , has destroyed most of its productive capacity and the dollar is on the verge of collapse( just look at the explosive growth of the gold price). One option would be to renounce the whole imperial project and reinvent the USA( and Britain) as a sovereign nation coexisting with others on a basis of equality, not domination. No doubt , this will be the eventual choice but it cannot be carried out by this leadership who have burnt their boats and are totally committed to the present strategy, not least because of the crimes that have brought them thus far. As in Macbeth, the pursuit of power involves crimes, the immunity from which can only be bought by new crimes: regression is unthinkable, renunciation of power, fatal. The necessary policy shift away from empire therefore entails a revolution, albeit a legal and democratic one. Since, for the war party, things cannot go on as they are and retreat is not an option, escalation imposes itself as the only remaining option.

“Yes but,” you will object, “the army is not up to occupying Iran”

True. The army has already shown that it is not up to occupying Iraq. Its “occupation” has degenerated into the aerial destruction of a nation- in fact a genocide.The Anglo-American empire is basically an offshore, financial, maritime empire. Its strength never rested on its land army but in its navy and now, its air force and nuclear capability. The height of its power was its success in dividing Eurasia, pitting the armies of France and Germany against Russia. We must be clear about one thing – there will never be an Anglo-American world empire! Furthermore, since 1990 the strength of the US army has decreased immensely. As a military power today it is either nuclear or it is nothing, Rumsfeld’s drivel about special forces and mercenaries notwithstanding. If it is not a military power how much less is it an economic or diplomatic power. So it is not hard to see that to assert itself in the world requires a nuclear show of strength , or at least so it would be perceived in the minds of those for whom supreme US power is axiomatic. With or without an attempted occupation of Iran, the US appears poised to play to its one perceived strength in endeavouring to destroy Iran from the air. The argument put forward that failure in Iraq precludes an attack on Iran has been turned on its head by the War Party: failure against Iraq means upping the ante against Iran- escalating the war not just geographically but in terms of means employed.

You may object ,” this war is not good for business.”

In other words, the quaint old marxist notion that “our business is business”. Our business is war and has been since the Whig financiers took over England and created Great Britain. The Bank of England became the supreme instrument of war as contemporaries like Defoe and Swift could see. But there was flaw in the edifice of absolute power, a fissure whose opening, even as the vicious, ancestral strain reasserts itself for the last time, betokens the doom of the House of Usher. The imperial leadership faces an impossible conundrum which lies at the root of their delusional insanity – only empire will do but it can only ever fail.

So madness will prevail and if this horror doesn’t happen it will only be because someone gets to Cheney before Cheney gets to the button. We can hope or pray for this outcome but I prefer that we take matters in our own hands. What must we do?

Another anti-war movement is possible!

Nothing is happening because the War Party so fear the potential of opposition to their aggression that they have pulled out all the stops , standing down all the oppositional organisations which they can control or influence. Amazingly, this appears to be virtually all of them and they may now just be tying up some loose ends in the shape of both George Galloway’s Respect and the Lib-Dems. We are in a stranglehold from which we must break loose, breaking in the process the unnatural silence around the approaching danger. We must embark upon a massive publicity campaign to alert the public to what is happening. The internet is our best hope but we cannot rely on that alone. We need “Hands off Iran” committees set up in every town to organise leafletings, meetings, demos, pickets etc. We must act, inform , communicate and convince. No one supports what they are planning other than the deranged. We are the mainstream and must act as such. I am already encouraged by the amount of stuff circulating on the net. Let it become a torrent not just about what they are doing but what we are doing.

The die is cast and in reality it was cast long ago. Swift in his clairvoyance would have been unsurprised and unfazed by the pretty pass in which we find ourselves. To us has fallen the task of constraining the Whigs in the final delirium of their madness. We are entitled to fear the worst but also to hope for a new era of lasting peace if this madness can be stopped. Ironically, the Anglo-Americam globalisation of death and destruction has led to a counter- globalisation of life and construction throughout the rest of the world. As we look on from here in the heart of darkness it seems that we must only reach out to become part of it. But the evil remains and must be met head on. Let us acquit ourselves well for the sake of this new, emerging life, for future generations and for our own humanity which can only affirm itself against the prevailing cacophony of falsehood and betrayal.

posted by colin buchanan at 9:35 AM 0 comments

[gilipolla]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8007
November 12, 2005
A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran
The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution
by Jorge Hirsch

On September 24 of this year, the United States finally achieved a goal it had persistently pursued over several years. Iran was declared by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to be in "non compliance" with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The resolution passed by the IAEA is remarkably weak. It does not set a date for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, and it does not even mention the possibility of sanctions. It even notes that Iran has made "good progress" in correcting its "breaches," all of which date back to before October 2003. The LA Times characterized it as a "gentle slap." It is instead an enormous thud.

We pointed out before that the probable reason for the U.S. to insist on the passage of such a weak resolution (on the face of opposition by Russia and China to stronger resolutions) was to reach a stalemate in the Security Council that would provide an excuse for U.S. military action, which would necessarily include the use of nuclear weapons against Iran [1], [2], [3]. There is, however, an even stronger reason for the U.S. to have pushed for this resolution so adamantly, a reason which is valid even if Iran is not referred to the Security Council at the forthcoming November 24 meeting or thereafter, and that supports the predicted scenario.

The IAEA resolution of September 24 2005 allows the United States to carry out a nuclear attack against Iran "legally."

Non-nuclear states have sought for many years that nuclear states issue clear "negative security assurances," meaning a committment from nuclear states not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. No matter how logical such a desire appears to you and me, nuclear states have been notoriously reluctant to make such pledges, especially the United States.

The latest such assurances from the five nuclear states date back to 1995, and are the subject of UN Security Council Resolution 984, which was passed with unanimity. The legal status of these assurances is not totally clear, and non-nuclear states have continued to request "legally binding" assurances, implying that the existing assurances are not. In fact, in 2002 John Bolton, then Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, in an interview with "Arms Control Today" explicitly disavowed any U.S. committment to the 1995 resolution.

Nevertheless, a case can be made that these assurances are at the very least "politically binding" and may even be "legally binding." The reason is that they were made for the explicit purpose of having the non-nuclear states extend the NPT in 1995. The fact that the non-nuclear states indeed did extend the NPT based on these assurances confers them legally binding character even if it was not so intended originally, according to G. Bunn (1997).

The text of the 1995 U.S. negative security assurance (S/1995/263) reads:

"The United States reaffirms that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United States, its territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a State towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State."

Good news, the U.S. cannot nuke Iran, a party to the NPT? Think again. The paragraph immediately before in the U.S. declaration reads:

"It is important that all parties to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. In that regard, consistent with generally recognised principles of international law, parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be in compliance with these undertakings in order to be eligible for any benefits of adherence to the Treaty."

Iran was "in compliance" until September 24th, 2005. Thereafter, the "benefit" of not being subject to nuking no longer applies. An analysis of this qualification of the U.S. negative security assurance declaration and its implications for non-nuclear states has been made by Jean du Preez in 2003 and is consistent with our conclusion.

Bolton's statements were made at a time when the US had already been denouncing for several years that Iran was pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the NPT. The detailed analysis of Gordon Prather, however, shows that Iran's 'violations' did not then nor do now amount to "non-compliance." Nevertheless it will be politically very important for the US that the 1995 security assurance is no longer applicable to Iran, and Bolton (now US Ambassador to the UN) will surely emphasize it at the United Nations when the time comes to justify the US action.

Iran's protective shield against US nukes, however feeble it was, is no longer. Any "negotiating proposal" of the EU and the US towards Iran will be carefully tailored so that Iran cannot possibly accept it. Irrespective of what happens at the November 24th IAEA meeting, the US plan to nuke Iran will continue moving forward, focused and unrelenting.
_____________________________________________________________

OTHER ARTICLES BY HIRSCH

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/

Nuking Iran With the UN's Blessing - Only the American people can stop it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312

Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran And the nuclear hitmen behind it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8263

Chemical Saddam Met Nuclear Uncle Sam And we are living with the consequences
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8206

Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund - The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8153

Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089

The Real Reason for Nuking Iran - Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649

Chemical Weapons, Nuclear War - What's at stake in a war on Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7542

The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote - Where have we seen this before?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7431

A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran - The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran - Congress should enact emergency legislation
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359

Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego.

[gilipolla]

http://urlsnip.com/165649
Pentagon Foresees Preemptive Nuclear Strikes

by Jim Lobe

September 25, 2005
Inter Press Services

Amid increasing tension between the United States and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program, and growing concern about overstretched U.S. ground forces, the George W. Bush administration is moving steadily toward adopting the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as an integral part of its global military strategy.

According to a March document by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was recently posted to the Pentagon's Web site, Washington will not necessarily wait for potential adversaries to use what it calls "weapons of mass destruction" before resorting to a nuclear strike against them.

The document, entitled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations [.pdf],"http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/jp3_12fc2.pdf has yet to be approved by Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, according to an account published in Sunday's Washington Post. However, it is largely consistent with the administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which was widely assailed by arms control advocates for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S.

"What we see as significant is that they are considering using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers in preemptive first strikes," said Ivan Oelrich of the Federation for American Scientists (FAS) about both the NPR and the new Doctrine.

The Doctrine would also appear to contradict the administration's oft-stated claim that it is significantly reducing the role of nuclear weapons in its global military strategy.

"[T]he new doctrine reaffirms an aggressive nuclear posture of modernized nuclear weapons maintained on high alert," according to Hans Kristensen of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"[T]he new doctrine's approach grants regional nuclear-strike planning an increasingly expeditionary aura that threatens to make nuclear weapons just another tool in the toolbox," he wrote last week in Arms Control Today.

"The result is nuclear preemption, which the new doctrine enshrines into official U.S. joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, where the objective no longer is deterrence through threatened retaliation but battlefield destruction of targets," according to Kristensen.

The Doctrine is the latest in a series of documents adopted by the administration that has moved the U.S. away from the traditional view that nuclear weapons should be used solely for the purposes of defense and deterrence.

Along with the NPR, which called for the development of new delivery systems for nuclear weapons and noted that China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya could all be targets, the new view was expounded by Bush himself in his September 2002 National Security Strategy document. "We cannot let our enemies strike first," he warned at the time.

In mid-2004, according to national security analyst William Arkin, Rumsfeld approved a top-secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" that directed the military to be prepared to attack potential adversaries, notably Iran and North Korea, that are developing WMD.

"Global strike," according to a classified January 2003 presidential directive obtained by Arkin, is defined as including nuclear, as well as conventional, strikes "in support of theater and national objectives."

The new document is the first to spell out various contingencies in which a preemptive nuclear strike might be used, including:

*
If an adversary intended to use WMD against the U.S. multinational or allied forces or a civilian population;
*
In cases of an imminent attack from an adversary's biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
*
Against adversary installations, including WMD; deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons; or the command-and-control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the U.S. or its friends and allies; and
*
In cases where a demonstration of U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons would deter WMD use by an adversary.

The previous Doctrine, promulgated under the Clinton administration in 1995, made no mention of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons against any target, let alone describe scenarios in which such use would be considered.

Moreover, the new Doctrine blurs the distinction that existed during the Cold War between strategic and theater nuclear weapons by "assign[ing] all nuclear weapons, whether strategic or nonstrategic, support roles in theater nuclear operations," according to Kristensen.

Another particularly worrisome aspect of the latest Doctrine, according to Oelrich, is its conflation of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons as one "WMD" threat that could justify a U.S. nuclear strike, particularly given the huge disparity in destructive and lethal impact between chemical weapons, on the one hand, and nuclear arms on the other.

"What we are seeing now is an effort to lay the foundations for the legitimacy of using nuclear weapons if [the administration] suspects another country might use chemical weapons against us," he said. "Iraq is a perfect example of how this doctrine might actually work; it was a country where we were engaged militarily and thought it would deploy chemical weapons against us."

Critics also fear that resorting to nuclear weapons may have become increasingly attractive to the administration as the Army and Marines have become bogged down in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan.

"[U.S. Strategic Command] planners, recognizing that U.S. ground forces are already overcommitted, say that a global strike must be able to be implemented 'without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces,'" according to Arkin's account of recent directives received by commanders charged with contingency planning.

The new strategy may also be relevant to the situation in Iran, which is known to have chemical weapons but whose nuclear program Washington insists is being used to produce weapons as well.

Writing in The American Conservative last month, columnist Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who also worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, reported that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had tasked the United States Strategic Command with drawing up a contingency plan for a "large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" in the event of another 9/11 terrorist attack.

"Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option," he wrote.

In fact, it is questionable whether even U.S. nuclear weapons could reach their hardened targets underground, which is why the Pentagon has been pressing Congress for several years to finance research into the development of the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator.

Democrats and a small minority of Republicans in the House of Representatives have so far blocked the administration's request, although it will be taken up later this fall by a joint House-Senate conference committee. The new Strategy may be aimed in part at exerting pressure on the lawmakers to approve the request.

Meanwhile, however, administration critics warn that instead of deterring potential adversaries from pursuing nuclear weapons, the new Doctrine is almost certain to have the opposite effect.

"We make it seem that nuclear weapons are essential to our security," noted Oelrich. "So it immensely enhances the cachet of nuclear weapons to others."

[gilipolla]

http://urlsnip.com/951980
Tony Benn calls on Scots to oppose growing US threat towards Iran
by Paul Dalgarno

Labour firebrand Tony Benn has called on Scots to stand up against a possible atomic attack on Iran by British and American forces.

The former MP and cabinet minister, known for his independence from the official party line, spoke out in Edinburgh after President Bush last week refused to rule out military action against Iran.

"He's not going to invade Iran because he hasn't got enough troops," said Benn. "Instead, he will bomb installations in Iran where nuclear work is going on. Just imagine an American bomb landing on a nuclear power station.

"He is planning an atomic attack with a release of radioactivity and consequences that would make previous wars shrink into insignificance."

While tensions over Iran have escalated since the country resumed its uranium enrichment programme - believed to be geared towards developing nuclear weapons - Benn drew comparisons with the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"The same line is being used, that Iran might have weapons of mass destruction, just as was said about Iraq. It was a lie - we know it was a lie. It was because [Bush] wanted the oil and the attack o
f Iran will be for a similar reason."

Benn, as president of the Stop the War Coalition, was speaking in Edinburgh ahead of an appearance at the Edinburgh International Book Festival. He famously resigned from the House of Commons in 2001 to "devote more time to politics".

Glasgow-based human rights lawyer Aamar Anwar joined Benn in calling for an urgent rethink on Britain's Middle Eastern policy. He said: "If we carry on doing as George Bush and Tony Blair say then we are in real trouble in this country.

"We're in real trouble right across this planet because there will indeed be a war without end and a war throughout the world."

Dan Plesch of European think tank the Foreign Policy Centre said: "It is hard to see Britain uninvolved in US actions. The prime minister is clearly of a mind to no more countenance Iran's WMD than he did Iraq's.

"In Iran's case the evidence is more substantial. The Iranians do have a nuclear energy programme and have lied about it."

He added: "In any event, Blair is probably aware that the US is unlikely to supply him with the prized successor to the Trident submarine if Britain refuses to continue to pay the blood sacrifice of standing with the US."

The Edinburgh Stop the War Coalition is backing a major demonstration in London next month, where the build up of military tension against Iran likely to be a key issue.

"Our immediate task is to see there's no support in this country for a war against Iran," said Benn. "It is a policy which could have consequences that go far beyond this generation. I see this war lasting as far ahead as the human race."

Having spent 50 years in parliament, Benn is the longest serving Labour MP in the history of the party.

A Labour spokesperson said: "Fortunately, Mr Benn does not speak for the government."

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca 1 May 2005

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an attack without the participation of the US.

Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in this operation.

"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )

The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).

Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.

Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.

In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":

"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28 )





The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )

Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend to other targets.

While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December 2004).

Iran's Military Capabilities

Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).

The US "Military Road Map"

The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.

Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )

The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy , emphasis added)

Main Military Actors

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.

Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )

The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been made.

Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.

2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.

5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.

6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

Timeline of Key Initiatives

In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military pipeline:

November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.

January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya’alon and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )

The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."

March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.

US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).

April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."

In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.

During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.

April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.

Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-2 BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.

The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf

Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.

May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and the US.

Iran Surrounded

The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreements with NATO.



Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)

In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:

"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

Concluding remarks:

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.

Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is underground")

In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear threat.

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict.

Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within the European Union.

Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.

Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.

The Antiwar Movement

The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of this war from happening.

This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in itself reverse the tide of war.

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.

What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those who rule in our name.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support of a global war agenda.

[gilipolla]

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861
November 1, 2005
The Real Reason for
Nuking Iran
Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda
by Jorge Hirsch

The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago. Tactics adjust to unpredictable events as they unfold.

There was such an event last week, when Iran's president declared that Israel must be "wiped off" the map. The surprise was not the statement, which was an often-repeated quote by the late Ayatollah Khomeini, directed at a domestic student audience. What was surprising was both the timing (amid discussions about whether Iran should be allowed to enrich uranium) and the relatively low-key U.S. response. Tony Blair expressed "revulsion," Chirac was "profoundly shocked," the European Union in a joint statement "condemned [it] in the strongest terms." Instead, Bush was quiet.

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan commented, "It underscores the concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions," and the usually vociferous U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton only said that Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel were "pernicious and unacceptable." Those are uncharacteristically mild statements for this administration in the face of such a provocative statement by Iran against one of the U.S.' closest allies. Why?

Because Iran's intended underlying message to the U.S., which was ill-timed only in appearance, was: If you nuke us, the world will know that you did it because Iran supports the Palestinian cause.

Instead, it is in the U.S.' interests to de-emphasize any suggestion to that effect, hence its low-key response. Because nuking Iran for threatening Israel will inflame the Arab world and will not be acceptable to our European allies nor even to the American public. There are many other justifications that the Western world and the American public will find more acceptable, and these will be emphasized by the Bush administration at the right moment.

* Iran "is determined to get nuclear weapons deliverable on ballistic missiles that it can then use to intimidate not only its own region but possibly to supply to terrorists." (John Bolton, Oct. 15, 2005)
* "We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international terrorism, acquire the most destructive weapons and the means to deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or beyond." (John Bolton, June 24, 2004)
* "[S]yria and Iran … share the goal of hurting America. … State sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with terrorists…." (George Bush, Oct. 6, 2005)
* The 9/11 Commission determined that al-Qaeda had long-standing and strong ties to Iran, for example that "senior al-Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives." (By contrast, it found no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq).
* Iran was responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, where 19 Americans were killed and 372 wounded, according to a June 2001 indictment by the U.S. attorney general. According to the 9/11 Commission, al-Qaeda may also have been involved.
* Hezbollah, a terrorist group tied to Iran, carried out the suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1982. Iran was directly involved, according to a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth in May 2003.

The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" [.pdf] as one of several possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries – not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the lives of many Americans or allies are at stake – just to demonstrate that it can do it.

The U.S. has maintained for some time now that it reserves the right to respond with nuclear weapons to attacks or intended attacks with WMD, and that it intends to use nuclear weapons to destroy underground enemy facilities. It is argued that such statements have deterrent value, and that maintaining ambiguity as to what might trigger a U.S. nuclear attack deters countries from pursuing military initiatives that are contrary to U.S. interests.

Nonsense. Those statements have no deterrent value because no one in his or her right mind would believe that the greatest democracy in the world would do such a thing.

Unless the U.S. demonstrates, by actually doing it once, that it is indeed prepared to do so.

How do you create the conditions to perform such a demonstration and avoid immediate universal condemnation?

* You declare Iran to be the second member of the "axis of evil."
* You start a "global war on terror."
* You invade the first member of the axis (Iraq) and put 150,000 U.S. troops at the doorstep of the second member, in harm's way – not enough troops to invade Iran, nor to prevent an Iranian invasion of Iraq after Iran is attacked.
* You strike Iran's facilities, using conventional and nuclear bombs, to deter Iran from retaliating with missiles with chemical warheads and from invading Iraq, thereby saving the lives of 150,000 American soldiers.
* You argue that Iran's chemical and nuclear facilities had to be destroyed to prevent terrorists using weapons from those facilities to attack the U.S. (Never mind that the nuclear facilities were just nuclear reactors, not nuclear weapons).
* You get Israel to pull the trigger, i.e., bomb some Iranian installations (as it did in Iraq at Osirak) to provoke an Iranian response.

Now enter the world after the U.S. "demo," according to U.S. planners:

* There will be no doubt that U.S. statements on the use of nuclear weapons will have deterrent value.
* The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will be amended to prohibit uranium-enrichment for all countries that do not do it already; violators will be nuked.
* North Korea will be forced to disarm under the now real and credible threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.
* Any country suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons or any other military capability that could threaten the U.S. or its allies will be nuked.
* Russia, China, and all other nuclear countries will eventually be forced to disarm under the threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.

However, the real world does not always follow the script envisioned by U.S. planners, as the Iraq experience illustrates. So here is a more likely "post-demo" scenario:

* Many non-nuclear countries, including those currently friendly to the U.S., will rush to develop a nuclear deterrent, and many will succeed.
* Terrorist groups sympathetic to Iran will do their utmost to retaliate in-kind against the U.S., and eventually will succeed.
* With the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons broken, use of them by other countries will follow in various regional conflicts, and subsequent escalation will lead to global nuclear war.

Bye-bye world, including the United States of America.
_____________________________________________________________

OTHER ARTICLES BY HIRSCH

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/

Nuking Iran With the UN's Blessing - Only the American people can stop it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312

Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran And the nuclear hitmen behind it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8263

Chemical Saddam Met Nuclear Uncle Sam And we are living with the consequences
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8206

Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund - The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8153

Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089

The Real Reason for Nuking Iran - Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649

Chemical Weapons, Nuclear War - What's at stake in a war on Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7542

The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote - Where have we seen this before?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7431

A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran - The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran - Congress should enact emergency legislation
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359

Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego.

[gilipolla]

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005/12/2/FB378486-BF4E-4F94-9794-DF6CAF014B2D.html
From Friday, December 2, 2005 issue.

U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Strategic Command announced yesterday it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons, after last month testing its capacity for nuclear war against a fictional country believed to represent North Korea (see GSN, Oct. 21). http://urlsnip.com/316071

In a press release yesterday, STRATCOM said a new Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike on Nov. 18 “met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability.”

The requirements were met, it said, “following a rigorous test of integrated planning and operational execution capabilities during Exercise Global Lightning.”

The annual Global Lightning exercise last month tested U.S. strategic warfare capabilities, including the so-called CONPLAN 8022 mission for a global strike, according to publicly available military documents.

CONPLAN 8022 is “a new strike plan that includes [a] pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world,” said Hans Kristensen, a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Kristensen first published the STRATCOM press release on his Web site, nukestrat.com. http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/globalstrike.htm

Military analyst William Arkin, in a column (http://urlsnip.com/921183) on the Washington Post Web site in October, wrote that the classified exercise involved the response to a radiological “dirty bomb” attack on Alabama by the fictional country Purple or allied terrorists. “In the exercise, Purple is a Northeast Asian nation thinly veiled as North Korea,” according to Arkin.

Maj. Jeff Jones, STRATCOM spokesman, said today that the exercise incorporated various scenarios and added, “Everything is fictional that we put in the exercise.”

Global Lightning employed command and control personnel, according to the STRATCOM release.

Global strike attacks could be launched from U.S. long-range bombers, nuclear submarines or land-based ballistic missiles, according to the STRATCOM Web site.

The new command was created Aug. 9 in an attempt to integrate broad elements of U.S. military power into global strike plans and operations.

That, according to an Arkin commentary (http://urlsnip.com/890923) in the Washington Post in May, could include anything from electronic jamming to penetrating computer networks, to commando operations, to the use of a nuclear earth penetrator. CONPLAN 8022, he wrote, is intended to address two scenarios using such capabilities: preventing a suspected imminent nuclear attack from a small state, and attacking an adversary’s suspected WMD infrastructure.

STRATCOM Commander Gen. James Cartwright said at an opening ceremony that the new command would help the country convey a “new kind of deterrence.”

According to the STRATCOM release, “The command’s performance during Global Lightning demonstrated preparedness to execute its mission of providing integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM missions.”

According to Arkin’s article in May, CONPLAN 8022 was completed in 2003, “putting in place for the first time a pre-emptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea.”

STRATCOM’s readiness for global strike was certified to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush in January 2004, Arkin reported.

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714
Nuclear War against Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 3, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca


The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran is now in the final planning stages.

Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are in "an advanced stage of readiness".

Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early 2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.

(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005) http://urlsnip.com/248172

The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

"Shock and Awe"

The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
http://urlsnip.com/143765

The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.

US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".

Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)

While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.

Consensus for Nuclear War

No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.

There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.

Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel ( http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-37245.html)and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.

The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".

The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.

The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"

The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.

The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.

According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons:

Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm



In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.

[gilipolla]

http://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/globalnetnews-summary/2006-01/msg00006.html
Chossudovsky on the Iran situation
# From: "GlobalCirclenet" < webmaster@globalcircle.net>
# To: globalnetnews-summary@lists.riseup.net
# Subject: Chossudovsky on the Iran situation
# Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:47:18 -0700


Below is the transcript of a radio interview with Chossudovsky
on the topic of Iran. Another version of his thinking can be seen
on rense.com:
http://rense.com/general69/nuke.htm

rkm

--------------------------------------------------------
Interview with Michel Chossudovsky - Jan. 2, 2006 - Monday
Brownbagger

Programme, Co-op radio, CFRO 102.7 FM, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada

Interviewer: Don Nordin
Guest: Michel Chossudovsky

I have on the line today Michel Chossudovsky, see http://
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE311A.html. He is a
professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, and we
will basing the programme today on an article that he has
recently written (entitled "The Anglo-American War of Terror
- An Overview") that is on the website:
http://globalresearch.ca and it centers around the problems
in the Mid East particularly (in) Iran. Welcome to the
programme, today, Michel.

Well, it's a pleasure to be on the programme. Greetings and
best wishes to everybody in British Columbia.

And you wanted to focus on the issue of Iran. Now, it seems
like we are looking at a situation building up with Iran and
it is centered around the terrorism, used as a pretext for
this agenda that they are building up, this global
domination agenda.

Q. Do you want to just get into that a bit, Michel, and
maybe you could talk around the issue of the imminent war
against Iran?

For the last year or so, the United States, Israel and
Turkey have been preparing an aerial bombing of Iran. This
went into the planning stage back in November of 2004. In
other words, it's over a year now and essentially this
operation is using the pretext of Iran's nuclear programme
to bomb its nuclear facilities. In fact, what is actually
being planned is a nuclear war and that nuclear war has
nothing to do with Iran. It has to do with nuclear weapons,
which are slated to be used by the United States and Israel
and I have looked into the various documents behind this.

We are not talking about surgical strikes. That's what's
being presented to public opinion - that the United States
is going to embark on surgical strikes directed against Iran
with a view to making the world safer and it's all based on
the idea that Israel is threatened and so on and so forth.
In fact, what is being planned is an all out nuclear war
using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. And this is
something, which is not widely known, although it's
confirmed in a number of military documents. (The air
assault) would use tactical nuclear weapons, which have an
explosive capacity between 1/3, and 6 times the Hiroshima
bomb.

I should mention that these tactical nuclear weapons, which
are often referred to as 'mini-nukes,' are now in a sense
re-classified - in fact they are considered as conventional
weapons and the distinction between conventional and nuclear
weapons has been blurred following a decision in the U.S.
Senate, December 2003, which essentially allows for these
so-called mini nukes to be used in conventional war theatres
and in fact, the senate decision was reached after a
propaganda campaign waged by the Pentagon, which enlisted
nuclear scientists to the fact these nuclear bombs were
harmless to civilians, quote, unquote. That's exactly the
term they used, that these nuclear weapons are "harmless to
civilians" because the explosion is underground, and the
system of delivery would be very similar to the conventional
bunker buster bombs.

But what is now very disturbing is that actually the
timeline for this operation has already been announced -
March of 2006. In other words, in the next three months.
This (timeline) has been confirmed by the Israelis. Prime
Minister Sharon has made the statement. His political
opponents, in particular Benjamin Netanyahu, have confirmed
that they are also in agreement with this posture - that
they will wage surgical strikes against Iran. But if you
look at in a broader context, you will realize that this is
not strictly an Israeli operation. It's an operation, which
involved the United States, Turkey, and Israel as the main
military actors but which is firmly by America's coalition
partners in NATO. In other words, NATO has given its
approval to this military operation. There are no
dissenting voices within the Atlantic military alliance as
occurred prior to the war in Iraq and in effect, I think
that there won't be many dissenting voices in the United
Nations Security Council, and eventually a pretext will be
built that Iran is a threat to global security in view of
its nuclear programme, and that is of course a very
controversial issue. But as to whether this is up for
civilian use or for military use, but there is no evidence
that Iran at this stage is developing nuclear weapons.

But what we're dealing with here is the fact that the United
States wants to launch a nuclear war. o.k.? And if it
launches a nuclear with Israel, what's going to happen is
this is going to affect a much broader region. The war is
going to extend to the entire Middle Eastern region; it's
going to lead to radioactive contamination over a large part
of that region and, in other words, if we thought we were in
a situation of chaos and war crimes in Iraq, we really
haven't seen what is planned ahead because this is a major
military operation which is being envisaged.

I have been reviewing a number of military documents to that
effect, and they are now talking about what is called
Concept Plan 8022. Now Concept Plan 8022 is a plan, which
would be implemented by US Strategic Command, which is
located at the Offutt Military Base in Nebraska.
Essentially, it's an air force base. And this Concept plan
essentially consists in what they call "global strike"; it
combines both conventional as well as nuclear strikes, and
it integrates the actions of the navy and the air force and
then of course, it would be implemented from US military
facilities in the Persian Gulf or in the Indian Ocean, in
particular, Diego Garcia, the military base, the extremely
large US facility strategically located in the Indian Ocean,
which is a joint navy/air force base in Diego Garcia, in the
Chagos Archipelago and from there they would implement the
aerial bombardments and also the missile attacks.

And so if this plan goes ahead, we are really entering into
a World War III scenario. I believe we are already in World
War III. World War III started at the beginning of the post
Cold war era, with the wars in Yugoslavia, but this is a new
stage in the deployment of America's war machine with
devastating consequences for the future of humanity.

Q. Now these targets - they are supposedly aiming at
these nuclear facilities. Are those located near to
populated areas?

Well, absolutely, they are heavily populated, and I don't
think they will limit these strikes strictly to these
facilities. I should mention that even if they use
conventional weapons against these nuclear facilities, the
explosions at those facilities would in fact trigger the
spread of radioactivity over a vast area because these are
nuclear power plants, and so on, which would be targeted.
But from what I understand, reading some of the background
material, is that what is contemplated is an operation in
terms of air strikes similar to what Donald Rumsfeld
implemented in March 2003 on Baghdad, prior to the actual
invasion. In other words, this 'shock and awe' blitzkrieg
type of bombing would occur and that is confirmed in fact by
statements of the U.S. military and we are talking about a
very large deployment, again as I said, comparable to the US
bombing raids on Iraq at the outset of the war.

Now when you speak of these tactical nuclear weapons having
the power of anywhere from 1/3 to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb,
and we've seen the damage that those bombs did to Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, I would think that even ones with 1/3 the
power - I guess they would be the ones that maybe they
would use to take out a nuclear plant - would do a lot of
damage. But I can't imagine where they would use one 6
times the power of a Hiroshima bomb.

I'm not entirely clear as to the explosive capacity of the
bombs that they are planning to use. I think you're right
that the ones that are being contemplated to be delivered,
let's say, with B-52 bombers, wouldn't be the larger ones,
o.k? They would be delivered in much the same way as the
conventional bunker buster bombs; it's the B-61-11, which is
the nuclear version of the conventional blue 1-13. I think
those are in fact probably of the order of about 1/2 of the
Hiroshima bomb.

But I think when we see that this process is unleashed -
once this process is triggered, we may be in a situation
where the U.S. military is landing several nuclear devices
in different parts of Iran and we must understand - and
that's also very important - is that Iran has the capacity
to retaliate in many different ways. It has stated that it
will retaliate. It has acquired rather sophisticated air
defense systems. Russia has delivered the equipment to it.

This war which is contemplated by its architects as an
aerial operation, could well lead into a ground war. ok?
The whole idea of Con Plan is that you don't have any
deployment of ground troops, and in fact, you have minimal
risk for your air force.

But what happens if Iran decides to confront U.S. troops
stationed in Iraq across the border, in northern Iraq? What
happens if Iran retaliates and sends its own missiles
towards U.S. facilities in the Persian Gulf or Israel for
that matter? So we are dealing with an extremely dangerous
scenario.

People don't realize - I don't think the military planners
realize themselves the implications of this military agenda.
And we are in a situation where in fact the military
planners, the people who actually devise the bombing
strategies, not the politicians necessarily, they actually
don't realize that these nuclear weapons are in fact,
nuclear weapons because the military manuals that they
consult and which have been drafted by the science labs and
the weapons factories and so on, stipulate that these
tactical nuclear weapons are "harmless to civilians" because
the explosion is underground. Now when a 3-star general
picks up the military manual, and says "ha, ha, here we are,
it explains that these weapons are harmless to civilians,
let's go ahead and use them". And so what we have is a
situation where the authors of this military propaganda, in
fact, are feeding this propaganda to their own command,
their own military command structures, so that those who
devise the propaganda believe in the propaganda which they
themselves are promoting. And that's a very dangerous
situation when people actually believe within the system,
within the command system - high ranking officers, 3-star
generals, 4-star generals - actually believe that these
nuclear weapons are harmless, well then we are really in a
fix because all the safeguards which have protected us from
a nuclear holocaust have been literally broken down.

And I don't think anybody really seriously has contemplated
what is behind this military agenda. I mean there are a
number of people around the world who know and understand,
but because the matter has literally not been debated in the
mainstream media, it's not the object of media attention, it
never reaches the front pages, andŠ Perhaps what's going to
happen is there is going to be a nuclear war in Iran and
then we are going to get a blip on the evening news, which
will follow various other news items saying "yes, there's
been a nuclear war" but they won't even say it's a nuclear
war, they will say something else because the nuclear
explosions may not be acknowledged as nuclear explosions
until much later.

And I should mention that the bunker buster bombs and the
nuclear versionsŠ are quite different but you can't always
say whether there is a nuclear explosion or a conventional
explosion because the bunker buster bomb creates such a
(large) explosion that it could be nuclear or it could be
conventional. But of course the difference is that in one
case you have radioactive materials which are spreading over
a vast area and leading to literally the devastation of all
forms of life for millions of years.

And so people, I don't think realize, at what juncture we
are presently (at) in our history. I think it's absolutely
devastating.

Well, this is something new, Michel, this use of nuclear
weapons on the battlefield. Why would they turn to nuclear
weapons? Why wouldn't they just stick to high intensity
explosives?

Well, I think there are many different reasons to that.
First of all, there is a little bit of history.

Two years ago in August of 2003, in fact it was on Hiroshima
Day, the Pentagon invited the private sector, namely the
military-industrial complex, to a meeting held at the Offutt
Air Force Base in Nebraska, Strategic Command Headquarters
and at that meeting they more or less requested the private
sector to define the nuclear agenda. Previously you had the
Nuclear Posture Review, which was passed in the Senate in
the beginning of 2002. But this 2003 meeting was very
important because what it did is it privatized nuclear war.
And it involved the military contractors, the producers of
weapons systems, not only in the production side but also in
the consumption side so that they actually said to the
nuclear weapons producers, well, listen, tell us how we are
going to use these weapons, we have to define a military
agenda. And so they now have in effect, they have
privatized nuclear war.

And so that it is a market driven, profit making operation
to produce bombs because the more bombs you produce the more
money you make, and you have a military allocation of 450
billion dollars a year out of the public purse, not to
mention the 200 billion dollars which is allocated to
finance the war in Iraq. You are talking about something of
the order of an annual basis, which is certainly in excess
of 500 billion dollars, not to mention all the black budgets
and the amounts which are channeled into shell companies,
which are controlled either by U.S. military or
intelligence, and so it is a very profitable venture for
military contractors, security companies, mercenary
companies, and so on.

And so I think that's the consensus - and how you reach that
consensus is by building, of course, pretexts for waging
war, which is what we are dealing with - and the 'fact' that
the nuclear weapons are harmless. The war on Iran is a
market driven war. It's profit for the military contractors,
and the military-industrial complex. It's profit for the
oil companies because the ultimate objective is to
confiscate Iran's oil reserves. It's to establish control
over that broader area, which is the Central Asia, Middle
East area, which encompasses 70% of (world) oil and gas
reserves, and ultimately it is also intended to confront
other major economic powers in the world, namely Russia and
China, both of which have a sizeable interest in that
region, and I should say also the Europeans, the European
Union.

But it would appear in this particular case, there is some
kind of tacit understanding with Germany and France in
particular, on sharing the spoils of war and I think that is
why we are leading up to a military operation where there
will be ultimately consensus, much in the same way as (with)
Yugoslavia. When Yugoslavia was invaded and bombed in 1999,
and even before that, when Germany and NATO and the United
Nations interfered in the Yugoslav civil war in the early
nineties, there was a consensus. The consensus was between
the United States, Germany, and broadly the Western military
alliance. And what you see emerging now is pretty much the
same situation. There's no dissenting voice anywhere.

In fact, even the frontline Arab states including Egypt,
Morocco, Jordan, and Algeria have been sucked into this
project. Early this year several countries of the eastern
Mediterranean conducted military exercises with several Arab
countries. And these countries were conducting military
exercises with Turkey and Israel. And so you can see how,
in effect, under NATO auspices they managed to bring in
these countries, at least the leaders of these countries,
not necessarily the people, but the leaders of these
countries - which are increasingly serving U.S. interest -
and how they managed to put them together in joint military
exercises with Israel, so that there doesn't seem to be much
of a dissenting voice in the Middle East with regard to this
military operation directed against Iran - although if we go
into a scenario of nuclear war or even a conventional war,
in other words, conventional aerial attack, in all
likelihood this war is going to spread to the entire Middle
Eastern region because at present what do we have? We've
three separate war theatres: Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Palestine.

But if Israel is involved in the coalition, in the
Anglo-American coalition, officially - of course
unofficially it has been part of the coalition for some time
- but if Israel is officially involved in the coalition, and
if the war extends into Iran and if Turkey is involved, you
can see just by looking at the map, that whole area is going
to explode. And if nuclear weapons are used, well, the
consequences of course affect everybody on this planet
because nuclear radioactive material will spread and it will
spread in a very broad area of the world and the likelihood
is the war itself could extend into other frontiers. That
region borders on the former Soviet Union; it also borders
onto China. Afghanistan has a border with China; that whole
area is militarized with U.S. military bases scattered all
over the place in the former Soviet republics and as I
mentioned a ground war is not to be excluded either. It's a
very grim scenario and it means that we have to do
everything in our power in the next few months to reverse
the tide.

STATION BREAK

Next we go to the major powers, which are, I suppose,
Russia, China, and India, who are not very far away from
even the present fighting in Iraq and they will be even
closer to the fighting that threatens the world in Iran. I
am just wondering what you think - I think I have heard
Russia say that if there are any attacks on Iran, that it
will retaliate in some way. China is certainly not going to
be happy about things that are going on there. I don't
think I've heard anything fromŠ

But on the other hand, neither China nor Russia have really
made any statements overtly in the diplomatic arena. Now
Russia is supporting Iran in terms of weapons delivery -
that we know. I mean even though the Russians are not
making any public statements, but that's part of the game.
I mean, that goes back to the Cold War era thatŠVladimir
Putin is not going to make any controversial statement
directed against the U.S. military agenda.

I think there was some statement that came from one of Š
the minister of defense or something like that. It wasn't a
statement from PutinŠ

No, that's entirely possible that people in the Russian
parliament, in the Russian military, can make certain
statements about what's going on. But again they are very
cautious and they also have their own hidden agenda.

But I think we have to take very seriously the fact that the
Russians are supplying Iranians with an air defense system,
a very sophisticated air defense system. They have actually
also assisted the Iranians to establish a satellite, a spy
satellite network, which will give them early warnings of an
Israeli attack and so they signed a very large contract with
Russia to put this spy satellite into orbit. This was
actually confirmed in the Sunday Times report recently, and
so we are not simply - we are dealing with a situation where
in fact Iran has the capabilities - perhaps it doesn't the
capabilities to challenge the United States military but it
certainly has the capabilities of defending itself to a
limited degree and it has also the capability of responding
and those capabilities.

We are talking about a country of some 60 million people.
It's not a small dot on the map. It has a very educated
population. They have capabilities to address this
aggression and I suspect that people in Iran will rally
behind the president irrespective of whether they support
him or not. That's a logical reaction which occurs in times
of war. So it certainly is something to bear in mind. I
sincerely wish it would be part of our election campaign
here in Canada. It should be part of the election campaign.
There we have a war, an ongoing war in Iraq, and the next
phase of this war has already been announced and the next
phase of this war could be as deadly as the ongoing phase of
this war.

But you don't think that in the event of aggression against
Iran there would be any sort of military reaction from
Russia or China at all?

I don't think that there would be any reaction from Russia
or China directly, no. There may be military cooperation
between Russia and Iran, which is in any event ongoing. But
I think the nature of diplomacy is that these two competing
powers, they don't wash their dirty linen in public so to
speak. When they meet with their counterparts, the United
Nations or wherever or the G8, it's all very polite.

Now, there are very important divisions which prevail.
There are important divisions within the western alliance as
well and soŠI think what is really needed at this juncture,
first of all, (is that) some countervailing diplomacy has to
occur.

It's very important that citizens actually pressure their
governments to take a stance on this, to take a stance
nationally and internationally. In other words, what do
political leaders in Canada believe of an impending nuclear
holocaust by their closest ally, the United States of
America? And this something very serious, it's not fiction.

Now, how can we reverse the tide? Well, we can reverse the
tide at several levels. I don't think it's necessarily
through massive demonstrations and so on, and walking
through the streets we are going to achieve it. We are
going to achieve that by ultimately unseating the military
agenda, by unseating the people behind it. In other words
by questioning the legitimacy of the main political and
military actors and the people who support them. And
essentially we are dealing with the Bush administration and
so I think that is very important.

But if for instance in Canada, in Western Europe, there
would be debate in national parliaments, where leaders would
be confrontedŠbecause in effect it is a conspiracy of
silence; nobody is talking about it. Political leaders are
not mentioning it; they are not saying they are for or
against.

But there has been absolutely no dissenting voice (that) has
occurred in the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. ok? And
in a sense this particular phase of the war is far more
serious than the previous one, because it is the first time
that coalition partners Israel, Britain and the United
States, have actually confirmed their intention to use
nuclear weapons against Iran. We are not dealing with some
abstract statement.

We are dealing with a pre-emptive nuclear doctrine and that
pre-emptive nuclear doctrine has already been formulated in
quite a number of texts of the U.S. military. It's
confirmed in speeches of the U.S. president and statements
by the U.S. military. And unfortunately our anti-war
movement is not always aware of these developments and
doesn't address them. So that anti-war sentiments from my
point of view (are) not enough if we are going to build an
anti-war movement based on "Hey, Bush, we are against you"
and send postcards or petitions to whoever. That is not
enough. We need to dismantle the decision-making process
behind the war agenda and that means unseating the rulers
who are supporting this particular course of action.

I want to turn the last question around and I want to ask in
this march towards global domination by the U.S. and the New
World Order forces, do you think there would come a time
where New World Order forces would militarily attack either
Russia or China or are they getting what they want from
those countries now? I mean in terms of economic activity
and so forth? Maybe they wouldn't even have to think in
terms of that type of activity.

Well there is no question that the National Security
doctrine does target China and Russia. Officially in the
Nuclear Posture Review of 2002, which was leaked to the Los
Angeles Times, China and Russia are explicitly identified as
targets for pre-emptive nuclear attacks. Now it is not to
say that is anything new because they have always been a
target going back to the Cold War era. But the fact that
they would be officially identified as targets when in fact
they are considered to be allies, at least Russia is
considered to be a friend of America, China a bit less. But
the fact that they would be officially identified as rogue
states, so to speak, indicates that the ultimate objective
of this military agenda is global, economic and military
domination, and the two remaining super powers in the world,
Russia and China, are the targets.

Now you are absolutely right, they already exert significant
influence in the area of economic activity, for instance.
China now has opened its borders to western banks. Western
banks can simply go in and take over the domestic banking
business - something which we don't even have in Canada. We
don't have foreign banks in Canada, at least not operating
freely in an unregulated environment and Citigroup has just
acquired very large banking stakes in China. China is the
provider of a large share of what we consume on a day-to-day
basis, produced in cheap labour factories.

I mean this idea that China is somehow a competing economic
power I think has to be qualified because in effect China is
really an economic-industrial colony of the West. Without
China the whole retail trade would collapse overnight
because most of the commodities that we buy in supermarkets
and shopping centres are produced in China, at least the
consumer durables are produced in China. And so, I think
that those inroads into the Chinese economy through inroads
in terms of banking - the outsourcing in the manufacturing
sectors - all this is happening and it indicates in effect
that China is not really a sovereign country; it may have
certain appearance of being sovereign but the way it's
international trade is organized, its links to international
financial institutions and so on makes it very, very much
dependent on Western markets and so on.

And that I think is also ultimately part of the military and
strategic agenda. Conquest is not strictly based on
invading, conquering and so on and taking over countries;
it's also based on overseeing the domestic banking system,
taking over trade, using country's resources to produce
cheap commodities for the Western markets and so on and so
forth. And that's certainly true in China.

Russia is somewhat of a different arrangement, but there you
can see that Western financial and industrial interests have
already made significant inroads into the former Soviet
Union. The International Monetary Fund is calling the shots
with regard to macro-economic reform. Large amounts of what
used to belong to the Soviet state, of state capital and
assets, have been transferred into private hands and many of
the large companies operating now in Russia, of course, are
foreign owned.

Yes, absolutely, the military agenda is one aspect. War and
globalization go hand and hand and the extension of the Free
Market is supported in turn by the military agenda.

Is it possible that the U.S. could over-extend itself in
terms of military spending and their economy could collapse
to the point where it couldn't sustain an ongoing New World
Order military agenda?

Well, I certainly think that perhaps we are already in that
situation. It is over-extended so not much in the capacity
to finance, but certainly it is over-extended in the
capabilities that it can deploy, mainly, essentially
manpower - the fact that it still need troops on the ground
and this particular operation, in fact, the Con Plan, it's
rationale is really to minimize the use of troops. You
don't need to put any boots on the ground. You go in with
your missiles, smart bombs, and B-52 bombers and essentially
(inflict) large damage to Iran in this particular case, and
you don't need to send in any ground troops. But again that
scenario in a sense is very theoretical because even an
aerial type of military operation could well result in
unintended consequences, which eventually lead into a ground
war. And I don't think the United States can afford another
ground war at this stage.

How cost effective are these nuclear weapons in termsŠas
opposed to conventional weapons in terms of effecting damage
to targets? Do you know?

I really don't know whatŠI don't know how much they cost to
produce. The thing is that you don't really need to have
nuclear weapons to incur damage to these facilities. You
could go in with conventional weapons and the damage, the
actual damage through explosion, is enough to wipe it out.

Bombs, for instance dead weight bombs, are cheaper to
deliver than bombs on the heads of cruise missiles.

Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, that's correct. But the
nuclear weapons can be delivered also from a B-52. You
don't need toŠyou can use cruise missiles to deliver them
but you can also use US long range bombers, which are
deployed out of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and they
can carry both nuclear as well as conventional bombs. And
so I don't think there's much of a consideration - as far as
delivery is concerned, these new tactical nuclear weapons,
the mini-nukes, can be delivered much in the same way as a
conventional bunker buster bomb.

In fact, from a military standpoint, there is very little
advantage in using a nuclear device; the only difference
that I can see is that the nuclear device will kill more
people both in the short as well as the long run. But if
it's a question of destroying a building or facilities, they
can be easily done through run of the mill conventional
weapons. But I don't think ultimately that is the purpose
of this military operation. The purpose of this military
operation is not to disable the nuclear facilities; the
purpose is to ultimately destroy a country and to implement
very significant civilian casualties, which then opens the
door for the conquest of Iran, its oil facilities and so on.

The more fundamental question is when you use nuclear
weapons without really assessing the underlying consequences
this opens a Pandora's Box and it leads toŠ.Pandora's Box is
not the correct designationŠit opens the road, essentially,
to a much broader war which could threaten the future of
humanity as we know it, and that's not an understatement.

Do you think Iran has any capability of lobbing or sending
some sort of a large bomb or weapon over to Tel Aviv?

Well they have the capabilities of retaliating that's for
sure, and they have their own generation of ballistic
missiles which they intend to use and this is certainly well
understood. The Iranians also have these Russian Tor M-1
anti-missile systems. Certainly they do have the
capabilities of responding.

Now the Israelis also have a very sophisticated air defense
system. But whatever actually occurs, as soon as - because
we have to see the logic really of a military confrontation
- as soon as they retaliate, the United States is going to
retaliate and Israel is going to retaliate, and they are
going to retaliate with more nuclear weapons. So the logic
of retaliation in this particular case opens up again the
possibility of escalation. I mean that's really what we
have to address is the fact if the Iranians decide to
retaliate, which they said they will do, and I believe they
will, then we expect the American will again retaliate in
retaliation.

So Israel is also sitting there with, I don't knowŠa couple
hundred of nuclear ICBM weapons that could be used too at
some point.

Well. that is correct, because Israel is the fourth or fifth
nuclear power in the world today. Its nuclear arsenal is
said to be more advanced and sophisticated than that of
Great Britain. But the discussions that I've seen so far do
not mention this nuclear arsenal; they don't mention their
nuclear arsenal. What they mention is the use of tactical
nuclear weapons so that at this stage they are not talking
about using their own nuclear warheads. They are talking
about using the (U.S.-supplied) min-nukes, but you are
absolutely right, if this whole conflict expands and leads
to escalation, there is a possibility, of course, that they
might decide to use their own thermonuclear weapons against
Iran.

Yeah. Well, on that note and in summing up, do you want to
take a few minutes to maybe again tell people what you think
they should be doing and maybe giving out some contacts?

Well, I think we have to - again, the time span is very,
very short. We have to certainly move very swiftly and
establish very consist anti-war networks across the land,
which are not necessarily geared towards major street
marches - those consume a lot of energy - they are
necessary, but they are not sufficient. We have to start
confronting our political leaders, who are complicit in this
war agenda.

Canada is involved in the war in Afghanistan, Haiti; it is
involved in joint consultations with the United States
leading up to its membership in Northern Command, which is
also on the agenda of joint Canada-U.S. negotiations. So I
think (Canadians) have to express our dissent in relation to
this military agenda and we have to ultimately also
challenge the people who are making these decisions on our
behalf and we are not going to send them a petition and ask
them please, Mr. So and so, Prime Minister, would you be so
kind as not to wage war on Iran. That kind of action is, I
think, ineffective because it ultimately accepts the
legitimacy of those who are actually conducting the war, and
these wars are criminal. They are a violation of
international law, and we have to ultimately unseat the main
political and military actors, which are pushing for this
war against Iran, as well as the war and the illegal
occupation of Iraq, which are part of the same broad
military agenda. So that I think is absolutely crucial.

We have to start the challenge at all levels, municipal,
provincial, federal, international and we ultimately have to
educate the public.

We have to confront the media-the media is complicit in this
project because if it were doing its job it would at least
be informing people of the devastating impacts of a nuclear
holocaust and it would be explaining to people the use of
tactical nuclear weapons means nuclear war. There is no
other way of saying it.

And when the United States embarks on a military adventure
in which nuclear weapons are presented as some kind of
peacekeeping instrument, essentially we can see on what
course we are. We are really going to go down the tube so
to speak. I mean down the drain, and that's a
self-destructive statement because it presents war as a
peacekeeping operation and it presents nuclear weapons as
some kind of harmless toy and military analysts are fully
aware of the implications. Again they are too 'polite' to
ultimately address these issues in a broad public arena.

Well, o.k., Michel. People should also check into the
website which you are involved with:
http://globalresearch.ca. Check in for information.

[gilipolla]

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/world/2006/01/331858.html
An invasion, conquest and settlement as in the case of Iraq are not included in the catalogue of options.. Too many Iranians, too many mountains, too many potential guerilla fighters and too many possible entanglements outside Iran, says Kenneth M. Pollack.

US PLANS “DISARMING STRIKES”

By Der Tagesspiegel

[This article published in: Der Tagesspiegel, 12/28/2005 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/.]


Many signs now indicate that the latency phase of theoretically weighing military strikes to disarm Iran is over. For several months, the US according to European security circles has worked out very concrete military options against Iran. In the past months, high-ranking representatives of the pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) visited the neighboring states of Iran whose cooperation in the emergency would be necessary or at least useful. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and above all Turkey are precedent goals of the American emissaries.

An invasion, conquest and settlement as in the case of Iraq are not included in the catalogue of options to be examined on their feasibility according to information of “Tagesspiegel.” As desirable as a “regime change” would be from Washington’s view, t his is not a goal that could be attained militarily. Such plans are regarded as completely unrealistic. Too many Iranians, too many mountains, too many potential guerilla-fighters and too many possible entanglements outside Iran, says Kenneth M. Pollack, a leading American Iran expert who during the Clinton years was responsible for the Gulf region in the National Security Council. This is the consensus of the strategic establishment in Washington.

Rumor has it that the Americans are presently giving a thorough review to disarming operations as to whether the Iranian potential of mass destruction could be destroyed if the worst comes to the worst through missile- and air-attacks. The concrete goals must be defined here as well as the corresponding militarily effective means. Coordination with American allies as operation bases against Iran would be necessary.

Iran is militarily weak apart from the possible nuclear future. While the United States is skeptical concerning the prospects for a peaceful settlement of the dispute around the armament of Iran with weapons of mass destruction, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of a military operation is difficult. If the worst comes to the worst, a military operation will be unavoidable since Israel will not accept a nuclear armament of the Mullahs. In case of doubt, the US and not Israel should do the dirty work, it is said. Even a narrowly demarcated air operation would involve enormous trickery, deceit and imponderability. First of all, there are the political incalculabilities. Relations to the Islamic world would become even more precarious. Latent crises in states that are still friendly like Saudi Arabia could erupt in an open disaster. People in Washington are not honest about the effect of a military action in Iran on Islamic-fundamentalist terrorism.

The military side itself is everything but transparent. The targets that are considered – nuclear research centers and nuclear reactors, production sites for missiles and so forth – are not visible. Rather they are well-protected installations that can hardly be attacked with conventional weapons.

Der Tagesspiegel
- e-mail: mbatko@lycos.com
- Homepage: http://www.mbtranslations.com

[gilipolla]

Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability

by David Ruppe

January 2, 2006
Global Security Newswire - 2005-12-02

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Strategic Command announced yesterday it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons, after last month testing its capacity for nuclear war against a fictional country believed to represent North Korea (see GSN, Oct. 21).

In a press release yesterday, STRATCOM said a new Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike on Nov. 18 “met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability.”

The requirements were met, it said, “following a rigorous test of integrated planning and operational execution capabilities during Exercise Global Lightning.”

The annual Global Lightning exercise last month tested U.S. strategic warfare capabilities, including the so-called CONPLAN 8022 mission for a global strike, according to publicly available military documents.

CONPLAN 8022 is “a new strike plan that includes [a] pre-emptive nuclear strike against weapons of mass destruction facilities anywhere in the world,” said Hans Kristensen, a consultant for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Kristensen first published the STRATCOM press release on his Web site, nukestrat.com.

Military analyst William Arkin, in a column on the Washington Post Web site in October, wrote that the classified exercise involved the response to a radiological “dirty bomb” attack on Alabama by the fictional country Purple or allied terrorists. “In the exercise, Purple is a Northeast Asian nation thinly veiled as North Korea,” according to Arkin.

Maj. Jeff Jones, STRATCOM spokesman, said today that the exercise incorporated various scenarios and added, “Everything is fictional that we put in the exercise.”

Global Lightning employed command and control personnel, according to the STRATCOM release.

Global strike attacks could be launched from U.S. long-range bombers, nuclear submarines or land-based ballistic missiles, according to the STRATCOM Web site.

The new command was created Aug. 9 in an attempt to integrate broad elements of U.S. military power into global strike plans and operations.

That, according to an Arkin commentary in the Washington Post in May, could include anything from electronic jamming to penetrating computer networks, to commando operations, to the use of a nuclear earth penetrator. CONPLAN 8022, he wrote, is intended to address two scenarios using such capabilities: preventing a suspected imminent nuclear attack from a small state, and attacking an adversary’s suspected WMD infrastructure.

STRATCOM Commander Gen. James Cartwright said at an opening ceremony that the new command would help the country convey a “new kind of deterrence.”

According to the STRATCOM release, “The command’s performance during Global Lightning demonstrated preparedness to execute its mission of providing integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM missions.”

According to Arkin’s article in May, CONPLAN 8022 was completed in 2003, “putting in place for the first time a pre-emptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea.”

STRATCOM’s readiness for global strike was certified to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and President George W. Bush in January 2004, Arkin reported.

[gilipolla]

Interview with Mordechai Vanunu: Israel preparing to use nuclear weapons against Iran
Each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples.

January 2, 2006
Voyenny Parad, No. 4, 2005 (original Russian)

The first rumors of Israel working on its own nuclear bomb arose back in the mid-1950s, when the Jewish state's scientific institutions started serious nuclear physics research. But only in 1986 did the rest of the world find out the real scale of Israel's work on nuclear weapons, thanks to Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu. With the assistance of Irish journalists Sean O'Carroll and Maria Escribano, we have managed to interview Israel's most prominent dissident. Mordechai Vanunu told us about the threat of a nuclear catastrophe hanging over the Middle East.

Question: You say that Israel already has nuclear weapons. Iran is on its way to acquiring them. And these two countries regularly exchange threats about bombing each other. How likely is a nuclear conflict in the Middle East?

Mordechai Vanunu: All I can say is this: the Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. The Israeli Defense Ministry has long had a nuclear arsenal. Israeli intelligence tried to keep the existence of this arsenal secret from the outside world, but fortunately did not succeed. Nevertheless, they are still trying to silence me - even now, after seventeen-and-a-half years in prison.

Question: Do you know how many nuclear bombs Israel has?

Mordechai Vanunu: When I worked at Dimona, nuclear materials were already being produced there - plutonium, lithium, tritium, and others. Enough to make ten nuclear bombs per year. In other words, starting from 1985, Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads by now.

Question: Why did you decide to speak out in 1986?

Mordechai Vanunu: I simply could not help it. Incidentally, now the Western countries, including the US, that condemn Iran for its intention to destroy Israel should condemn themselves first of all. It were they that gave nuclear technologies to the Israelis and helped them to build the center in Dimona where the atomic bomb was created, although the Israeli government did not recognize this fact.

(...)

Question: Israel and Iran are on the threshold of nuclear confrontation now. Is nuclear apocalypse inevitable in Middle East?

Mordechai Vanunu: No doubt, the main reason for this confrontation is the Palestinian problem. For many decades Palestinians have been living in occupation like in prison. They will never stop fighting and sacrificing their lives for the sake of liberation.

Question: But this is not a justification for terrorism and statements similar to those made by the President of Iran when he promised to "wipe Israel off the map"?

Mordechai Vanunu: Killing Palestinians, including civilians - demolishing their houses and pushing people into ghettoes - isn't that terrorism?

Translated by Pavel Pushkin Defesne and Security (Russia)

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20060102&articleId=1704
Not Just A Last Resort? A Global Strike Plan, With a Nuclear Option

by William Arkin

January 2, 2006
The Washington Post - 2005-05-15

Global Research Editor's note

This incisive article by William Arkin on the Bush adminstration's Nuclear War doctrine was published in May 2005. It outlines the mechanism whereby a nuclear attack against a Iran or North Korea would be carried out. These war plans involving the US, Israel and turkey for a nuclear attack on Iran are now in a state of readiness. They have also been endorsed by NATO.

Early last summer, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing the military to assume and maintain readiness to attack hostile countries that are developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically Iran and North Korea.

Two months later, Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, told a reporter that his fleet of B-2 and B-52 bombers had changed its way of operating so that it could be ready to carry out such missions. "We're now at the point where we are essentially on alert," Carlson said in an interview with the Shreveport (La.) Times. "We have the capacity to plan and execute global strikes." Carlson said his forces were the U.S. Strategic Command's "focal point for global strike" and could execute an attack "in half a day or less."

In the secret world of military planning, global strike has become the term of art to describe a specific preemptive attack. When military officials refer to global strike, they stress its conventional elements. Surprisingly, however, global strike also includes a nuclear option, which runs counter to traditional U.S. notions about the defensive role of nuclear weapons.

The official U.S. position on the use of nuclear weapons has not changed. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has taken steps to de-emphasize the importance of its nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has said it remains committed to reducing our nuclear stockpile while keeping a credible deterrent against other nuclear powers. Administration and military officials have stressed this continuity in testimony over the past several years before various congressional committees.

But a confluence of events, beginning with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and the president's forthright commitment to the idea of preemptive action to prevent future attacks, has set in motion a process that has led to a fundamental change in how the U.S. military might respond to certain possible threats. Understanding how we got to this point, and what it might mean for U.S. policy, is particularly important now -- with the renewed focus last week on Iran's nuclear intentions and on speculation that North Korea is ready to conduct its first test of a nuclear weapon.

Global strike has become one of the core missions for the Omaha-based Strategic Command, or Stratcom. Once, Stratcom oversaw only the nation's nuclear forces; now it has responsibility for overseeing a global strike plan with both conventional and nuclear options. President Bush spelled out the definition of "full-spectrum" global strike in a January 2003 classified directive, describing it as "a capability to deliver rapid, extended range, precision kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic (elements of space and information operations) effects in support of theater and national objectives."

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02.

CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations. All these elements generally require significant lead time to be effective. (Existing Pentagon war plans, developed for specific regions or "theaters," are essentially defensive responses to invasions or attacks. The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.)

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.

By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.

The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.

It is difficult to imagine a U.S. president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran or North Korea under any circumstance. Yet as global strike contingency planning has moved forward, so has the nuclear option.

Global strike finds its origins in pre-Bush administration Air Force thinking about a way to harness American precision and stealth to "kick down the door" of defended territory, making it easier for (perhaps even avoiding the need for) follow-on ground operations.

The events of 9/11 shifted the focus of planning. There was no war plan for Afghanistan on the shelf, not even a generic one. In Afghanistan, the synergy of conventional bombing and special operations surprised everyone. But most important, weapons of mass destruction became the American government focus. It is not surprising, then, that barely three months after that earth-shattering event, the Pentagon's quadrennial Nuclear Posture Review assigned the military and Stratcom the task of providing greater flexibility in nuclear attack options against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and China.

The Air Force's global strike concept was taken over by Stratcom and made into something new. This was partly in response to the realization that the military had no plans for certain situations. The possibility that some nations would acquire the ability to attack the United States directly with a WMD, for example, had clearly fallen between the command structure's cracks. For example, the Pacific Command in Hawaii had loads of war plans on its shelf to respond to a North Korean attack on South Korea, including some with nuclear options. But if North Korea attacked the United States directly -- or, more to the point, if the U.S. intelligence network detected evidence of preparations for such an attack, Pacific Command didn't have a war plan in place.

In May 2002, Rumsfeld issued an updated Defense Planning Guidance that directed the military to develop an ability to undertake "unwarned strikes . . . [to] swiftly defeat from a position of forward deterrence." The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies."

"We cannot let our enemies strike first," President Bush declared in the National Security Strategy document.

Stratcom established an interim global strike division to turn the new preemption policy into an operational reality. In December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then Stratcom's head, told an Omaha business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.

Ellis posed the following question to his audience: "If you can find that time-critical, key terrorist target or that weapons-of-mass-destruction stockpile, and you have minutes rather than hours or days to deal with it, how do you reach out and negate that threat to our nation half a world away?"

CONPLAN 8022-02 was completed in November 2003, putting in place for the first time a preemptive and offensive strike capability against Iran and North Korea. In January 2004, Ellis certified Stratcom's readiness for global strike to the defense secretary and the president.

At Ellis's retirement ceremony in July, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an Omaha audience that "the president charged you to 'be ready to strike at any moment's notice in any dark corner of the world' [and] that's exactly what you've done."

As U.S. military forces have gotten bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, the attractiveness of global strike planning has increased in the minds of many in the military. Stratcom planners, recognizing that U.S. ground forces are already overcommitted, say that global strike must be able to be implemented "without resort to large numbers of general purpose forces."

When one combines the doctrine of preemption with a "homeland security" aesthetic that concludes that only hyper-vigilance and readiness stand in the way of another 9/11, it is pretty clear how global strike ended up where it is. The 9/11 attacks caught the country unaware and the natural reaction of contingency planners is to try to eliminate surprise in the future. The Nuclear Posture Review and Rumsfeld's classified Defense Planning Guidance both demanded more flexible nuclear options.

Global strike thinkers may believe that they have found a way to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle; but they are also having to cater to a belief on the part of those in government's inner circle who have convinced themselves that the gravity of the threats demands that the United States not engage in any protracted debate, that it prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Though the official Washington mantra has always been "we don't discuss war plans," here is a real life predicament that cries out for debate: In classic terms, military strength and contingency planning can dissuade an attacker from mounting hostile actions by either threatening punishment or demonstrating through preparedness that an attacker's objectives could not possibly be achieved. The existence of a nuclear capability, and a secure retaliatory force, moreover, could help to deter an attack -- that is, if the threat is credible in the mind of the adversary.

But the global strike contingency plan cannot be a credible threat if it is not publicly known. And though CONPLAN 8022 suggests a clean, short-duration strike intended to protect American security, a preemptive surprise attack (let alone one involving a nuclear weapon option) would unleash a multitude of additional and unanticipated consequences. So, on both counts, why aren't we talking about it?

William M. Arkin, who writes frequently about military affairs, is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth).

[gilipolla]

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/jp3-12_05.htm
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, Fall 2005 (forthcoming)

Analysis of the updated Joint Pub 3-12 is based on the second final coordination draft which was published in March 2005. Click on the image above to download copy. Once the final document is published, this page will be updated.

Update (Dec. 2, 2005):

Lawmakers Write To The President

Sixteen Senators and Representatives sent a letter to the President objecting to the "drastic shift in U.S. nuclear policy" included in the draft Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations.

The updated version of Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Pub 3-12) was scheduled for publication August 15, 2005. Yet issues remain, and the publication date slipped again. The document is already more than two years overdue (publication was initially planned for October 2003, see graph below). Sources at the Pentagon now anticipate publication later in the fall.

Despite the delay, the second final coordination draft from March 2005 is mature enough to permit an analysis of the content of the final document. Some things will likely change in the final document, but at this late a stage they are anticipated to be cosmetic and not significantly change the content of the document. Once the final document is published, this analysis will also be updated.


The new doctrine incorporates preemption into joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, lowers the threshold for nuclear use further by reducing the level of hostilities where U.S. nuclear weapons might be used, endorses a role of nuclear weapons against all forms of weapons of mass destruction, endorses a role of nuclear weapons against terrorists, and describes missile defenses as a means of defending nuclear forces rather than people against attack.


The new doctrine incorporates the findings of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and the 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. It reflects the impact of 9/11 on U.S. strategic thinking with a focus on all WMD threats whether from countries or non-state actors. As a result of these developments, the updated Joint Pub 3-12 has been changed significantly compared with the previous versions of the document.

The decision to update the doctrine dates back to March 2001, when the Joint Staff issued a program directive directing consolidation of Joint Pub 3-12 and Joint Pub 3-12.1 (theater) into a single Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations to guide employment of both strategic and non-strategic (theater) nuclear forces.

[gilipolla]

Joint Functional Component Command for Space and Global Strike (JFCC-SGS)

Commander
Lieutenant General Kevin P. Chilton, USAF

Mission Statement

The JFCC SGS provides integrated Space and Global Strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of USSTRATCOM global missions.

Background

Established in January 2005, JFCC SGS optimizes operational-level planning, execution, and force management for the USSTRATCOM mission of deterring attacks against the United States. When directed, JFCC SGS integrates all elements of military power in collaboration with all STRATCOM components, National Agencies, and other Combatant Commanders to support or execute Space and Global Strike operations. Through the Joint Space Operations Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, the JFCC SGS directs day-to-day planning and execution of assigned military Space missions. JFCC SGS was activated 9 August 2005. The Air Operations Center at Barksdale Air Force Base supports JFCC SGS with operations planning and execution capabilities. Cruise Missile Support Activities Atlantic (Norfolk, VA) and Pacific (Camp Smith, HI) provide Tomahawk cruise missile planning capabilities. The Joint Information Operations Center in San Antonio, TX, provides Information Operations expertise. The Department of Defense Manned Space Flight Support Office (DDMS), headquartered at Patrick Air Force Base, FL, coordinates military support for manned space flight operations.

Current Operations

JFCC SGS integrates all elements of military power as it conducts, plans and presents global strike effects. Current operations include:

*

Leads integrated operational planning among all USSTRATCOM Components
*

Provides integrated analysis of the command’s global mission capabilities
*

Develops and provides Space and Global Strike execution recommendations
*

Supports USSTRATCOM’s Strategic Command and Control mission
*

Operational and tactical control of global strike forces as directed
*

Provides continuous space situational awareness of assigned space forces
*

Coordinates tasking to other joint components and service task forces for synchronizing USSTRATCOM operational and tactical mission planning and execution needs
*

Supports USSTRATCOM nuclear command and control and force execution responsibilities
*

Coordinates and maintains tactical level intelligence supporting the operational needs of space and global strike component commands

Personnel

JFCC SGS is currently authorized over 400 military and government civilian billets with 270 assigned today.
(Current as of August 2005) http://www.stratcom.mil/fact_sheets/images/fact-sheet-header.gif

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20051225&articleId=1635
Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs

by Prof. James Petras

December 25, 2005
Counterpunch

Never has an imminent war been so loudly and publicly advertised as Israel's forthcoming military attack against Iran. When the Israeli Military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was asked how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran's nuclear energy program, he said "Two thousand kilometers" ­ the distance of an air assault.

More specifically Israeli military sources reveal that Israel's current and probably next Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered Israel's armed forces to prepare for air strikes on uranium enrichment sites in Iran According to the London Times the order to prepare for attack went through the Israeli defense ministry to the Chief of Staff. During the first week in December, "sources inside the special forces command confirmed that 'G' readiness ­ the highest state ­ for an operation was announced" (Times, December 11, 2005).

On December 9, Israeli Minister of Defense, Shaul Mofaz, affirmed that in view of Teheran's nuclear plans, Tel Aviv should "not count on diplomatic negotiations but prepare other solutions". In early December, Ahron Zoevi Farkash, the Israeli military intelligence chief told the Israeli parliament (Knesset) that "if by the end of March, the international community is unable to refer the Iranian issue to the United Nations Security Council, then we can say that the international effort has run its course".

In other words, if international diplomatic negotiations fail to comply with Israel's timetable, Israel will unilaterally, militarily attack Iran. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party and candidate for Prime Minister, stated that if Sharon did not act against Iran, "then when I form the new Israeli government (after the March 2006 elections) we'll do what we did in the past against Saddam's reactor." In June 1981 Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq.

Even the pro-Labor newspaper, Haaretz, while disagreeing with the time and place of Netanyahu's pronouncements, agreed with its substance. Haaretz criticized "(those who) publicly recommend an Israeli military option" because it "presents Israel as pushing (via powerful pro-Israel organizations in the US) the United States into a major war." However, Haaretz adds "Israel must go about making its preparations quietly and securely ­ not at election rallies." (Haaretz, December 6, 2005). Haaretz's position, like that of the Labor Party, is that Israel not advocate war against Iran before multi-lateral negotiations are over and the International Atomic Energy Agency makes a decision.

Israeli public opinion apparently does not share the political elite's plans for a military strike against Iran's nuclear program. A survey in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, reported by Reuters (December 16, 2005) shows that 58 per cent of the Israelis polled believed the dispute over Iran's nuclear program should be handled diplomatically while only 36 per cent said its reactors should be destroyed in a military strike.

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran. The thinking behind this date is to heighten the pressure on the US to force the sanctions issue in the Security Council. The tactic is to blackmail Washington with the "war or else" threat, into pressuring Europe (namely Great Britain, France, Germany and Russia) into approving sanctions. Israel knows that its acts of war will endanger thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, and it knows that Washington (and Europe) cannot afford a third war at this time.

The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.

A March date also focusses the political activities of the pro-Israel organizations in the United States. The major pro-Israel lobbies have lined up a majority in the US Congress and Senate to push for the UN Security Council to implement economic sanctions against Iran or, failing that, endorse Israeli "defensive" action.

On the side of the Israeli war policy are practically all the major and most influential Jewish organizations, the pro-Israeli lobbies, their political action committees, a sector of the White House, a majority of subsidized Congressional representatives and state, local and party leaders. On the other side are sectors of the Pentagon, State Department, a minority of Congressional members, a majority of public opinion, a minority of American Jews and the majority of active and retired military commanders who have served or are serving in Iraq.

Most discussion in the US on Israel's war agenda has been dominated by the pro-Israeli organizations that transmit the Israeli state positions. The Jewish weekly newspaper, Forward, has reported a number of Israeli attacks on the Bush Administration for not acting more aggressively on behalf of Israel's policy. According to the Forward, "Jerusalem is increasingly concerned that the Bush Administration is not doing enough to block Teheran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (December 9, 2005).

Further stark differences occurred during the semi-annual strategic dialog between Israeli and US security officials, in which the Israelis opposed a US push for regime change in Syria, fearing a possible, more radical Islamic regime. Israeli officials also criticized the US for forcing Israel to agree to open the Rafah border crossing and upsetting their stranglehold on the economy in Gaza.

Predictably the biggest Jewish organization in the US, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations immediately echoed the Israeli state line. Malcolm Hoenlan, President of the Conference, lambasted Washington for a "failure of leadership on Iran" and "contracting the issue to Europe" (Forward, December 9, 2005). He went on to attack the Bush Administration for not following Israel's demands by delaying referral of Iran to the UN Security Council for sanction. Hoenlan then turned on French, German and British negotiators accusing them of "appeasement and weakness", and of not having a "game plan for decisive action" ­ presumably for not following Israel's 'sanction or bomb them' game plan.

The role of AIPAC, the Conference and other pro-Israeli organizations as transmission belts for Israel's war plans was evident in their November 28, 2005 condemnation of the Bush Administration agreement to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan under which Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium for non-military purposes under international supervision. AIPAC's rejection of negotiations and demands for an immediate confrontation were based on the specious argument that it would "facilitate Iran's quest for nuclear weapons" ­ an argument which flies in the face of all known intelligence data (including Israel's) which says Iran is at least 3 to 10 years away from even approaching nuclear weaponry.

AIPAC's unconditional and uncritical transmission of Israeli demands and criticism is usually clothed in the rhetoric of US interests or security in order to manipulate US policy. AIPAC chastised the Bush regime for endangering US security. By relying on negotiations, AIPAC accused the Bush Administration of "giving Iran yet another chance to manipulate (sic) the international community" and "pose a severe danger to the United States" (Forward, Dec. 9, 2005).

Leading US spokesmen for Israel opposed President Bush's instruction to his Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khaklilzad, to open a dialog with Iran's Ambassador to Iraq. In addition, Israel's official "restrained" reaction to Russia's sale to Teheran of more than a billion dollars worth of defensive anti-aircraft missiles, which might protect Iran from an Israeli air strike, was predictably echoed by the major Jewish organizations in the US.

Pushing the US into a confrontation with Iran, via economic sanctions and military attack has been a top priority for Israel and its supporters in the US for more than a decade (Jewish Times/ Jewish Telegraph Agency, Dec. 6, 2005). In line with its policy of forcing a US confrontation with Iran, AIPAC, the Israeli PACs (political action committees) and the Conference of Presidents have successfully lined up a majority of Congress people to challenge what they describe as the "appeasement" of Iran.

Representative Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), who has the dubious distinction of being a collaborator with Cuban exile terrorist groups and unconditional backer of Israel's war policy, is chairwoman of the US House of Representative Middle East subcommittee. From that platform she has denounced "European appeasement and arming the terrorist regime in Teheran". She boasted that her Iran sanctions bill has the support of 75 per cent of the members of Congress and that she is lining up additional so-sponsors.

Despite pro-Israeli attacks on US policy for its 'weakness' on Iran, Washington has moved as aggressively as circumstances permit. Facing European opposition to an immediate confrontation (as AIPAC and Israeli politicians demand) Washington supports European negotiations but imposes extremely limiting conditions, namely a rejection of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes.

The European "compromise" of forcing Iran to turn over the enrichment process to a foreign country (Russia), is not only a violation of its sovereignty, but is a policy that no other country using nuclear energy practices. Given this transparently unacceptable "mandate", it is clear that Washington's 'support for negotiations' is a device to provoke an Iranian rejection, and a means of securing Europe's support for a Security Council referral for international sanctions.

Despite the near unanimous support and widespread influence of the major Jewish organizations, 20 per cent of American Jews do not support Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians. Even more significantly, 61 per cent of Jews almost never talk about Israel or defend Israel in conversation with non-Jews (Jerusalem Post, Dec 1, 2005). Only 29 per cent of Jews are active promoters of Israel. The Israel First crowd represents less than a third of the Jewish community. In fact, there is more opposition to Israel among Jews than there is in the US Congress. Having said that, however, most Jewish critics of Israel are not influential in the big Jewish organizations and the Israel lobby, excluded from the mass media and mostly intimidated from speaking out, especially on Israel's war preparations against Iran.


The Myth of the Iranian Nuclear Threat

The Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, has categorically denied that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat to Israel, let along the United States. According to Haaretz (12/14/05), Halutz stated that it would take Iran time to be able to produce a nuclear bomb ­ which he estimated might happen between 2008 and 2015.

Israel's Labor Party officials do not believe that Iran represents an immediate nuclear threat and that the Sharon government and the Likud war propaganda is an electoral ploy. According to Haaretz, "Labor Party officialsaccused Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and other defense officials of using the Iran issue in their election campaigns in an effort to divert public debate from social issues".

In a message directed at the Israeli Right but equally applicable to AIPAC and the Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations in the US, Labor member of the Knesset, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer rejected electoral warmongering: "I hope the upcoming elections won't motivate the prime minister and defense minister to stray from government policy and place Israel on the frontlines of confrontation with Iran. The nuclear issue is an international issue and there is no reason for Israel to play a major role in it" (Haaretz, December 14, 2005).

Israeli intelligence has determined that Iran has neither the enriched uranium nor the capability to produce an atomic weapon now or in the immediate future, in contrast to the hysterical claims publicized by the US pro-Israel lobbies. Mohammed El Baradei, head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspected Iran for several years, has pointed out that the IAEA has found no proof that Iran is trying to construct nuclear weapons. He criticized Israeli and US war plans indirectly by warning that a "military solution would be completely un-productive".

More recently, Iran, in a clear move to clarify the issue of the future use of enriched uranium, "opened the door for US help in building a nuclear power plant". Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hamid Reza Asefi, stated "America can take part in the international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality" (USA Today, Dec. 11, 2005).

Iran also plans to build several other nuclear power plants with foreign help. This Iranian call for foreign assistance is hardly the strategy of a country trying to conduct a covert atomic bomb program, especially one directed at involving one of its principal accusers.

The Iranians are at an elementary stage in the processing of uranium, not even reaching the point of uranium enrichment, which in turn will take still a number of years, and overcoming many complex technical problems before it can build a bomb. There is no factual basis for arguing that Iran represents a nuclear threat to Israel or to the US forces in the Middle East.

Scores of countries with nuclear reactors by necessity use enriched uranium. The Iranian decision to advance to processing enriched uranium is its sovereign right as it is for all countries, which possess nuclear reactors in Europe, Asia and North America. Israel and AIPAC's resort to the vague formulation of Iran's potential nuclear capacity is so open-ended that it could apply to scores of countries with a minimum scientific infrastructure.

The European Quartet has raised a bogus issue by evading the issue of whether or not Iran has atomic weapons or is manufacturing them and focused on attacking Iran's capacity to produce nuclear energy ­ namely the production of enriched uranium. The Quartet has conflated enriched uranium with a nuclear threat and nuclear potential with the danger of an imminent nuclear attack on Western countries, troops and Israel. The Europeans, especially Great Britain, have two options in mind: To impose an Iranian acceptance of limits on its sovereignty, more specifically on its energy policy; or to force Iran to reject the arbitrary addendum to the Non-Proliferation Agreement and then to propagandize the rejection as an indication of Iran's evil intention to create atomic bombs and target pro-Western countries.

The Western media would echo the US and European governments position that Iran was responsible for the breakdown of negotiations. The Europeans would then convince their public that since "reason" failed, the only recourse it to follow the US to take the issue to the Security Council and approve international sanctions against Iran.

The US then would attempt to pressure Russia and China to vote in favor of sanctions or to abstain. There is reason to doubt that either or both countries would agree, given the importance of the multi-billion dollar oil, arms, nuclear and trade deals between Iran and these two countries. Having tried and failed in the Security Council, the US and Israel would, on the scenario of the War Party, move toward a military attack. An air attack on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities would entail the bombing of heavily populated as well as remote regions leading to large-scale loss of life.

The principal result will be a huge escalation of war throughout the Middle East. Iran, a country of 70 million, with several times the military forces that Iraq possessed and with highly motivated and committed military and paramilitary forces could be expected to cross into Iraq. Iraqi Shiites sympathetic to or allied with Iran would most likely break their ties with Washington and go into combat. US military bases, troops and clients would be under fierce attack. US military casualties would multiply. All troop withdrawal plans would be disrupted. The 'Iraqization' strategy would disintegrate.

Most likely new terrorist incidents would occur in Western Europe, North America, and Australia and against US multinationals

Sanctions on Iran would not work, because oil is a scarce and essential commodity. China, India and other fast-growing Asian countries would balk at a boycott. Turkey and other Muslim countries would not cooperate. The sanction policy would be destined to failure; its only result to raise the price of oil even higher.

Here in the United States there are few if any influential organized lobbies challenging the pro-war Israel lobby either from the perspective of working for coexistence in the Middle East or even in defending US national interests when they diverge from Israel. Although numerous former diplomats, generals, intelligence officials, Reformed Jews, retired National Security advisers and State Department professionals have publicly denounced the Iran war agenda and even criticized the Israel First lobbies, their newspaper ads and media interviews have not been backed by any national political organization that can compete for influence in the White House and Congress.

As we draw closer to a major confrontation with Iran and Israeli officials set short-term deadlines for igniting a Middle East conflagration, it seems that we are doomed to learn from future catastrophic losses that Americans must organize to defeat political lobbies based on overseas allegiances.

Global Research Contributing Editor James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in Brazil and Argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
Target Iran - Air Strikes

One potential military option that would be available to the United States includes the use of air strikes on Iranian weapons of mass destruction and missile facilities.

In all, there are perhaps two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran. The 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would likely be the target of such strikes. According to the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, the spent fuel from this facility would be capable of producing 50 to 75 bombs. Also, the suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak will likely be targets of an air attack.

American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities in an effort to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq.
Available US Forces

Many aircraft are still in the region supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. The United States had aircraft at multiple locations throughout the Persian Gulf, including Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Diego Garcia. While the number of aircraft in the region has declined significantly since the end of major hostilities in Iraq, the United States continues to have some number of F-15Es, F-16s, naval aircraft, and some unidentified number of heavy bombers in the region.

Information regarding how many aircraft are actually in the Persian Gulf region is scant as units are returning to the United States and it is not clear if units are being sent as replacements. By mid-June 2003 there were no longer any AWACs in region and stealth aircraft had long since departed for the United States. Insufficient information regarding available aircraft makes it impossible to predict how many Joint Direct Attack Munition capable aircraft were available for strikes and how many potential aim points this would provide to mission planners.

Redeploying US forces to the region would take a small amount of time, but the absence of significant numbers of stealth aircraft, early warning aircraft, and other assets by September 2004 was a possible indicator that the United States was not actively considering the air strike option. The US had postured a number of strike aircraft to attack North Korea during the first half of 2003, and might make similar preparations in anticipation of a strike against Iran. Alternately, the US might wish to retain the element of surprise, and use heavy bomber forces staging directly from the United States.

Since the end of major hostilities in Iraq the United States has typically kept one aircraft carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf region in support of Iraqi Freedom. Tomahawk cruise missiles deployed on cruisers, destroyers, and submarines could also be used to strike fixed locations. A Carrier Strike Group would typically have about 500 verticle launch system cells, which could mean that roughly 250 Tomahawks would be available for tasking.

[gilipolla]

http://antiwar.com/hirsch/
How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran
Congress should enact emergency legislation
by Jorge Hirsch

January 9, 2006

Multiple pieces of independent evidence suggest that America is embarked in a premeditated path that will lead inexorably to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran in the very near future. Facing clear evidence of this peril, we cannot wait for the final proof – the smoking gun – in the form of a mushroom cloud. Whether you are liberal or conservative, antiwar or pro-war, if you believe this would be catastrophic for America and the world, the time to act to derail it is now!

"You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," said Bush when asked about Iran in August 2005, oblivious to the fact that "secure our country" had proven to mean attacking a country without an ounce of WMD and with no links to al-Qaeda.

"One of the reasons we are so concerned about the Iranian nuclear program is that Iran is a government with a long track record of supporting international terrorism. … Our deepest fear is that one of these terrorist groups could one day obtain a nuclear weapon," said the assistant secretary of state in 2004.

"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves" is official U.S. policy. The saber-rattling and propaganda against Iran attributed to "Western intelligence" have dramatically risen in volume and tone since these statements were made. How do we stop Bush from pulling the trigger?

Congress should enact immediate emergency legislation to take away from President Bush the authority to use nuclear weapons preemptively against non-nuclear countries. This is a power granted to Congress under the U.S. Constitution.

15 Reasons Why Iran Will Be Nuked

To do the utmost to try to prevent it, we need to be reasonably certain that it will happen if we don't act. Below I summarize 15 reasons, many discussed in more detail in previous columns. The links provide support for the assertions made.

These reasons taken together indicate both that U.S. military action (aerial bombing) against Iran is exceedingly probable and that military action without the use of nuclear bombs is exceedingly improbable.

* The diplomatic path being followed by the Bush administration in regard to Iran's nuclear ambitions does not appear to be designed to lead to diplomatic compromise: rather, it appears designed to reach a diplomatic impasse.
* The "nuclear posture" and "nuclear doctrine" [.pdf] recently adopted by the U.S. envisage nuclear strikes on non-nuclear countries that fit the Iran pattern.
* Iran stands accused by the U.S. of possession of WMD (chemical and biological), of pursuing nuclear weapons, of possessing threatening missiles, of being the prime sponsor of terror [.pdf] among the world's nations, and of being an enemy of the United States.
* A doctrine of preemption has been adopted by the administration against potential threats to the U.S., one already put into practice in the case of Iraq.
* There are underground targets in Iran (nuclear facilities [1], [2], missile silos and production facilities, suspected chemical and biological facilities) against which the use of nuclear bombs would be more effective than conventional bombs.
* Earth-penetrating nuclear bombs (B61-11) were incorporated into the U.S. stockpile in September 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service Report to Congress of October 2005 [.pdf]. Some of these are very low yield and will cause small collateral damage.
* If a military confrontation with Iran starts, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles and of potentially overwhelming conventional Iranian forces. Early use of nuclear weapons may deter Iran from responding to an aerial attack.
* The "legal" framework to support the nuking of Iran has been put in place: (a) the IAEA's Sept. 24 declaration of Iran's noncompliance with the NPT, which allows the U.S. to nuke Iran "legally," and (b) several UN resolutions adopted under Chapter VII that the U.S. can claim apply to Iran.
* The people in the upper levels of the Bush administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Hadley, and the other "nuclear hitmen") can be expected, given their record, to be strongly in favor of the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
* There is no indication that anybody in the upper levels of the administration recognizes the potentially catastrophic consequences of using low-yield nuclear weapons against Iran.
* Israel and its influential lobbies in the United States are applying pressure on the U.S. to act to stop Iran's nuclear program.
* Various reports indicate that U.S. preparations for an air strike on Iran are ongoing (Philip Giraldi, William Arkin, Seymour Hersh, recent news). The U.S. recently issued a warning for U.S. citizens not to travel to Iran.
* Iran's growing role as a regional power is incompatible with Cheney's strategic plan for a one-superpower world.
* The Bush administration wishes to establish the value of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to "dissuade" and "deter" adversaries from pursuing paths contrary to U.S. interests.
* The president as commander in chief has sole authority (without consulting Congress) to initiate hostilities against Iran and to order the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. The responsibility to save American lives is foremost among the duties of the chief executive.

Low-Yield Nukes for High Crimes

The B61-11 nuclear earth-penetrator has yields that reportedly range from 0.3 kilotons to 340 kilotons and can penetrate up to 7 meters into the ground before detonation. The following are some of the conclusions of a 2005 National Academy of Sciences study [.pdf] on nuclear earth-penetrators tasked by Congress:

* Many important hard, deeply buried targets (HDBT) are beyond the reach of conventional explosive penetrating weapons and can be destroyed only with nuclear weapons.
* Nuclear earth-penetrators need to penetrate only a few meters to achieve maximum effectiveness for destruction of underground facilities.
* The yield required of a nuclear weapon to destroy an HDBT is 15 to 25 times smaller if the weapon is detonated a few meters below the surface than if it is detonated at the surface.
* For attacks on HDBTs in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields.
* For urban targets, civilian casualties from a nuclear earth-penetrator weapon are less by a factor of 2 to 10 than those from a surface burst having 25 times the yield.

So for a quick estimate, the yield of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons and it killed about 100,000 people. According to the numbers given above, a 0.3 kiloton bomb (factor of 50 smaller) detonated below the surface (up to a factor of 10 smaller effect) would kill only 200 people, "small" collateral damage.

According to the aforementioned Congressional Research Service Report of October 2005, the B61-11 entered the nuclear stockpile in the year 2001. Many of Iran's facilities are underground and probably require nuclear weapons to be completely destroyed, e.g., parts of the Natanz site for uranium enrichment and the underground tunnels at the Isfahan uranium reprocessing facility. Iran's ballistic-missile production facilities and some missile silos are reportedly underground.

The yield of the B61-11 bomb is in doubt: the Nuclear Posture Review describes it as a "single-yield weapon," and recent reports indicate that the yield is 400 kilotons. However, we know that "every current U.S. nuclear weapon has one or more low-yield settings." According to Bob Peurifoy, a former Sandia labs weapons-design manager, "I know how to give you most of those [low] yields today with a pair of wire cutters and a wrench." Information on nuclear weapons' yields is classified

The 1998 Rumsfeld report (by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, tasked by Congress) asserted the following:

* Iran has acquired and is seeking major, advanced missile components that can be combined to produce ballistic missiles with sufficient range to strike the United States.
* Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction.
* Iran has a nuclear energy and weapons program and aims to design, develop, and produce nuclear weapons.
* If Iran were to accumulate enough fissile material from foreign sources, it might be able to develop a nuclear weapon in only one to three years.
* Iran also has an active chemical weapons development and production program.
* Iran is conducting research into biological weapons.

You don't have to believe all of those claims (I don't). But you had better believe that Donald Rumsfeld believes them, and he has his finger on the trigger!

Premeditation Shows Criminal Intent

The Bush administration will present the nuking of Iran as a "grave decision," the "gravest decision" a president ever had to make, reached after much "agonizing," necessary to save American, Israeli, Iraqi, and Iranian lives. In order to appreciate the magnitude of the crime, we must understand that this is not so; it is a premeditated act, and the elements to make it happen were carefully and methodically assembled over many years. Let us review some key pieces of evidence:

* The IAEA vote. The U.S. pursued a declaration of Iran's noncompliance for several years. The U.S. finally succeeded in getting the very weak Sept. 24, 2005, resolution passed, which has no practical consequences other than allowing for the U.S. to use nuclear weapons against Iran "legally." The relentless pursuit of this declaration over several years, and making ElBaradei's reappointment conditional on it [1], [2], [3], was motivated by the exclusion clause in the 1995 negative security assurance, and indicates that the decision to nuke Iran was made several years ago.
* Executive Order 13292 was issued March 2003, making the items "weapons of mass destruction" and "defense against transnational terrorism" classified. When the public finally learns that the administration had classified information about these items (shared with selected members of Congress, including Democrats), which justified the forward deployment of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf, it will be clear that the executive order was made so that this information could be kept classified and not subject to public scrutiny, thus also indicating that the decision to nuke Iran was made several years ago.
* StratCom news release. The Strategic Command news release of Nov. 18, 2005, which stated that its "global strike" plan (already leaked earlier) had reached "operational capability," had one clear purpose: to remind China and Russia that they are in the U.S. crosshairs, and that any intervention by them in response to the U.S. strikes on Iran will be met with a "nuclear preemptive strike."
* Hadley's appointment. Stephen Hadley, a nuclear weapons "enthusiast," was appointed deputy national security adviser in 2001. As a consequence, he could be moved smoothly and silently to the key position of national security adviser in the second Bush term with very little media attention (though it did get some). This indicates that the plan was in place as far back as 2001.
* John Bolton and other "nuclear warriors." John Bolton's appointment as ambassador to the UN, against extraordinary bipartisan opposition, bypassing Congress, placing him in a position where he clearly does not belong, does not appear to make sense. It is understandable, however, if the reason for the appointment was that he would be the best person to defend the U.S. nuking of Iran at the UN. Several other "nuclear warriors" were placed in key positions at the beginning of the second Bush administration, positions that do not require special expertise in nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons was apparently a given for the second Bush term.
* Nuclear Posture Review. The "leaking" of carefully selected "excerpts" of the Nuclear Posture Review of 2002 was a deliberate effort to prepare the nation and the world for the nuking of Iran, several years before it was to take place.
* NSPD 35. The classified presidential directive that, as we will learn soon enough, authorizes the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf, was signed in May 2004.
* B61-11. The development and deployment of the B61-11 nuclear bunker-buster gathered momentum around 1995, at the same time that the U.S. began voicing serious concerns about Iran's nuclear program and Clinton imposed an economic embargo on Iran.
* Accusations against Iran. Accusations with no basis in reality have built up over many years. The "nuclear" aspect was always emphasized so that the public would accept the nuking of Iran. In particular, the baseless assertions in the 1998 Rumsfeld report that (1) "[Iran] has a nuclear energy and weapons program, which aims to design, develop, and as soon as possible produce nuclear weapons," (2) "Iran has acquired and is seeking major, advanced missile components that can be combined to produce ballistic missiles with sufficient range to strike the United States," and (3) "[Iran] might be able to develop a nuclear weapon in only one to three years" are meant to prepare Congress and the public for a nuclear strike on Iran.
* Invasion of Iraq. The U.S. invasion of Iraq makes no sense in isolation; in fact, it has left Iran in a much stronger position in the region. Iran is the real regional power that can challenge U.S. interests in the long term, but in order to attack Iran in 2006, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a necessary prelude. Preparations for the Iraq invasion, and hence for the Iran attack, began at least as far back as 2001.

All of this evidence indicates substantial planning and premeditation. A well-established principle in criminal law dictates that substantial planning and premeditation is a severe aggravating circumstance.

Why Nuking Iran Will Be Catastrophic

None of the accusations leveled at Iran by the U.S. are facts, other than that Iran has a substantial missile arsenal with missiles that can reach Israel (Shahab-3). Iran claims its missiles are for defensive purposes against regional enemies and, in particular, a deterrent against Israel. This is certainly not unbelievable given that Iran was attacked by Iraq in the '80s, and Israel has repeatedly threatened to strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. It should be remembered that Iran has never launched an aggressive war in modern times.

To get a vivid snapshot of the stark contrast in the mindsets of the adversaries involved, visit the following two Web sites [1], [2]: At [1], from the Federation of American Scientists, we "learn" that

* Isfahan is said to be the primary location of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
* Isfahan is also reportedly the site of Iran's largest missile assembly and production plant.
* Isfahan is said to be one of Iran's major chemical weapons facilities.
* Isfahan area is a major center for Iran's advanced defense industry.
* The main operational facilities for the army's aviation units are located at Isfahan.

At [2], an Iranian Web site, we learn of Isfahan that

* In addition to being a unique cultural, historical, and religious center, the city is famous for its rich, precious heritage, its charming artworks and handicrafts, as well as prominent scholars and scientists.
* It is home to archaic mosques, including the 1,400-year-old Grand Mosque and Seyed Mosque, the largest and most famous mosque of the city dating back to two centuries ago.
* Handicrafts such as enamels, handwoven carpets, and tilework.
* The city will be named as the Second Cultural Capital of World of Islam at an official ceremony concurrent with Eid al-Qorban (Jan. 11).
* At the ceremony, which is scheduled to be held at the historical majestic Imam Square, the flags of 57 Islamic states will be hoisted and Iran's national anthem will be played.

This suggests that Iranians and others in the Muslim world may not take it calmly when Isfahan is attacked with American nukes (hopefully not on Jan. 11!). Even if the American nuclear attack initially targets only facilities with high accuracy, a violent reaction from Iran and an escalation of the conflict are likely to occur and lead to devastating consequences.

By now, it has become clear and widely known, even if not yet in the mainstream media, that the stage was set long ago by the United States for this scenario to unfold: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (I apologize for the very many omissions). The fact that the Bush administration has not brought up the issue for wide discussion in the country, given the careful preparations that have been made, reveals the duplicitous nature of the plan and the complete disregard the administration has for the will of the American people. The premeditated nature of the crime will become widely apparent to the whole world after it happens, with catastrophic consequences for the U.S.' role in the world.

The rest of the world rightly regards nuclear weapons as qualitatively different from all other weapons because of their enormous destructive power and their potential to destroy humanity. The rest of the world understands that there is no sharp line dividing small nuclear weapons from large ones, nor between nuclear weapons targeting underground facilities and those targeting armies or cities; that an escalating nuclear war can lead to the death of every man, woman, and child on the planet; and that there is no reason in the world why the U.S. should have a monopoly on nuclear weapons. In the eyes of the rest of the world, a premeditated nuclear attack on Iran, a non-nuclear country, will be seen as a criminal abomination. America's status as the leader of the civilized world will be obliterated. And the new world will be an infinitely more dangerous place.

What Can Americans Do to Prevent It

If the majority of Americans abhor these events, they should not allow them to proceed. Every one of us should do all we can and a bit more to avert them. Some suggestions:

* Contact your representatives by fax, telephone, letter, or in person.
* Call radio talk shows.
* Write letters and opinion pieces for local newspapers.
* Bring the topic up with relatives, friends, newsgroups, and blogs, and encourage them to do the above.
* Contact antiwar groups to organize events and rallies around this specific issue. A major demonstration should be planned for the moment Bush issues an ultimatum against Iran.
* Think about one or two people who are above you in the opinion-shaping food chain whom you can perhaps convince that this is important. Eventually, the issue may reach celebrities who can give it wider publicity, then to government officials who could make a difference.

All of this will help. Unfortunately, no matter how much publicity and public opposition arise, the administration can still go ahead with its plans. To prevent it from doing so, here is a concrete proposal to present to your congressional representatives: the Nuclear Responsibility Act, an emergency bill in Congress dealing with the authority to order the use of nuclear weapons. This can be initiated in the Senate, the House of Representatives, or both. There are ways to do this quickly! The Terri Schiavo bill was introduced on March 19, 2005, passed by the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives on March 20, and signed into law by President Bush in the early hours of March 21. Granted, there is one more step here – the presidential veto that will take one more iteration and a 2/3 congressional majority to override.

Under the U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 14, Congress has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Hence, Congress can regulate, i.e., control and direct, the use of nuclear weapons by the armed forces. The full authority for the use of nuclear weapons rests now with the president. That authority should be curtailed. Because traditionally there has been reluctance to limit the powers of the president in times of war, the practical approach is to shoot for as small a limitation as possible to avert the immediate danger, the nuking of Iran.

What should be prevented at the very least is the ability of the president to use a nuclear weapon preemptively. The discussion about whether it is reasonable to respond with nuclear weapons to major actual attacks with other "WMD" (e.g., chemical weapons) is important and long overdue but should perhaps be left for another day. What is urgent is that the president not be allowed to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran on the argument that "intelligence" (which can later be proven to be false) shows that an enemy attack with non-nuclear WMD is "imminent."

The decision to use nuclear weapons is an extremely grave one. The extreme urgency necessitating exclusive presidential authority for the use of nuclear weapons against a nuclear country does not exist in a conflict with a non-nuclear country. There is no good reason why, in such a situation, the decision to use nuclear weapons should not be shared by Congress. Congress has the constitutional right to demand, not just ask [1], [2], to be part of this decision.

Given that the administration has chosen to define a radically new nuclear posture [.pdf] that makes the use of nuclear weapons much more likely, it behooves Congress to fulfill its duty to represent the will of the people in this matter of overwhelming public importance and create the law that will allow it to exercise its oversight responsibilities.

Hence a possible bill could say:

* Purpose: to affirm the Congress' authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the U.S. Constitution to make rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces, and apply such authority to the United States' use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states.
* Resolved: The United States armed forces shall not employ nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons state in the absence of an explicit congressional authorization to that effect.
* The president retains sole authority to authorize the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state in the presence of previously issued congressional authorization.
* If a verifiable massive enemy attack with weapons of mass destruction against United States citizens or armed forces takes place that results in thousands of casualties, the president may authorize the emergency use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapons state in the absence of prior congressional authorization, in anticipation that Congress will grant authorization a posteriori.
* Congress shall grant a posteriori authorization after it certifies that a massive enemy attack with WMD did occur prior to the U.S.' use of nuclear weapons.
* If Congress does not certify that such an enemy attack took place, it shall decline to grant a posteriori authorization and the president shall be determined to be in violation of this law.

You may pick your favorite penalties for a president who violates this law.

If America is going to nuke a non-nuclear country, all Americans will be held responsible by much of the world. So either we stop it or we have Congress vote that it is the will of the country to do so. Then, if you don't agree with how your congressperson voted, you can throw him/her out at the next election. That's democracy!

This plan to stop a nuclear attack on Iran is, of course, a very long shot. But perhaps just the introduction of such a bill would be enough to derail the Bush administration's plans. Write to your representative!

The alternative is to sit back, let it happen, and live with the consequences. There is little doubt that the rest of the world will consider the use of nuclear weapons preemptively against a non-nuclear country as a morally repugnant act, and its perpetrators and condoners as worthy of opprobrium and universal condemnation.
_____________________________________________________________

OTHER ARTICLES BY HIRSCH

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/

Nuking Iran With the UN's Blessing - Only the American people can stop it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8312

Nuclear Deployment for an Attack on Iran And the nuclear hitmen behind it
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8263

Chemical Saddam Met Nuclear Uncle Sam And we are living with the consequences
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8206

Nuking Iran Without the Dachshund - The meaning of the Philip Giraldi story
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8153

Can a Nuclear Strike on Iran Be Prevented? Or will the world allow it to happen?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8089

The Real Reason for Nuking Iran - Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7861

Israel, Iran, and the US: Nuclear War, Here We Come
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7649

Chemical Weapons, Nuclear War - What's at stake in a war on Iran
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7542

The Meaning of the IAEA Iran Vote - Where have we seen this before?
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=7431

A 'Legal' US Nuclear Attack Against Iran - The real reason for the IAEA Iran resolution
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8007

How to Stop the Planned Nuking of Iran - Congress should enact emergency legislation
http://antiwar.com/hirsch/?articleid=8359

Jorge Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego.

[gilipolla]

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_08_01/article3.html
August 1, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Deep Background


In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

[gilipolla]

More about Iran from Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18

[gilipolla]

http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/01/israel-declares-war-iran-next-nuclear.html
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Israel declares war: Iran the next nuclear Holocaust

In Washington and Tel Aviv it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the US administration who brought you Iraq, are preparing to do the same for Iran. Preparing the next nuclear holocaust: military action in Iran.

by Henk Ruyssenaars

Jan. 22nd - 2006 - An Israeli statement given yesterday by many is seen as an official declaration of nuclear war concerning Iran. It was made by the Israeli Minister of War, Shaul Mofaz, who internationally is despised for the atrocities committed by the Israeli armed forces, the IDF. Reported by one of the neocon's own propagandists, Josef Federman who produces 'info' for their disinformation bureau Associated Press (AP).

Forbes offers the AP propaganda under the caption "Talk of Military Action in Iran Standoff" - on the same web site where one can find "Top Topless Beaches" and "Where We Want To Live In 2006". Quote: "Israel's defense minister hinted Saturday that the Jewish state is preparing for military action to stop Iran's nuclear program, but said international diplomacy must be the first course of action. "Israel will not be able to accept an Iranian nuclear capability and it must have the capability to defend itself, with all that that implies, and this we are preparing" Shaul Mofaz said.

Of course it is sheer madness what those warmongers are doing again, and one can wonder about the mental health and/or disappeared brain capacities of those who advocate the next genocide. French President Jacques Chirac said - according to Stratfor - that any states that use terrorist means or weapons of mass destruction against France "must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and adapted response from us." On a visit to the nuclear submarine base L'Ile-Longue in Brittany, France, Chirac said France's nuclear forces have been configured for such an event.

COMING WAR TRIBUNALS

What in the French mind also means that anybody, under whatever 'false flag' trying to pull off a dirty trick in 'la douce France' - by whatever group or nationality - will be punished likewise: nuclear. One wonders what information the French had to find those remarks necessary. AP referred to Germany's defense minister who 'said in an interview published Saturday that he is hopeful of a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear program, but argued that "all options should remain open". This last remark - if true - qualifies him for a coming War Tribunal: as an accused.

BILDZEITUNG: FOR DECADES SPREADING BRAIN-AIDS

Asked by the low level 'Bild am Sonntag' weekly whether the threat of a military solution should remain in place, Franz Josef Jung was quoted as responding: "Yes, we need all options." One has to know that Bildzeitung - the Bildpaper - by thinking people in Germany is looked upon as something spreading brain-aids.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Saturday that Chirac's threats reflect the true intentions of nuclear nations, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported. "The French president uncovered the covert intentions of nuclear powers in using this lever (nuclear weapons) to determine political games," IRNA quoted Asefi as saying. AP reconfirms the nefarious plans by stating again that 'Israel long has identified Iran as its biggest threat and accuses Tehran of pursuing nuclear weapons." - The same pack of war on Iraq lies all over!

ISRAEL: TOTAL NEGLECT OF SEVENTY-TWO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

The fact that Germany, France and Britain have said that talks aimed at halting Iran's nuclear progress were at a dead end and called for Iran's referral to the U.N. Security Council, shows that reality has no place anymore in the warmongering. None of those not to be trusted 'Heads of State' - or so called church- or 'moral leaders' has ever dared to question Israel's bellicose nuclear armament. Nor have those cowards and opportunists questioned Israel's total neglect of SEVENTY-TWO United Nations resolutions concerning Israel's inhumane treatment and malevolence not only of the Palestinians which are 'holocausted' by them.

And they all know: Iran is controlled 24 hrs a day and seven days a week for two decades already: you can't move a wheelbarrow or mini-van in that country without NSA/CIA - [http://tinyurl.com/8afvb] - recording it all. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, will meet Feb. 2 to discuss a possible referral to the US's Security Council - where figures concerning the control on Iran can be presented. [http://tinyurl.com/c2g2q]

Israel's Mofaz said 'sanctions' might be part of the treatment given Iran and it's population: they already killed with sanctions many more than half a MILLION babies in Iraq, so further genocide - which they call 'depopulation' - is in the making. - [http://tinyurl.com/dneux]

SUPPORTING ISRAELI WAR PLANS: COLLABORATING ENGLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS

The general impression is that Israeli leaders further 'wag the tail' of the American 'Dog of War', and plan for an own unilateral preventive nuclear strike to start the war with. Backed as usual by the neocon war criminals in their Pentagon, and a the bribed and/or bullied collaborators like England and The Netherlands. Even while knowing that millions of lives will be lost in a horrible Hiroshima-like way.

Israel's war plans concerning Iran radicalized since Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said last year 'that Israel should be asking the European countries for space and shelter, if they confess all the time being guilty of the debated Holocaust'. Instead of exterminating the Palestinians for being in their own land. The main reason for the war however being the start of Iran's oil bourse and the danger for the US 'fiat money' called the 'dollar', the 'make believe' money made by the privately owned banks of the Federal Reserve* out of green paper and ink.

10 YEARS TO MAKE ONE SIMPLE GUN-TYPE NUKE?

There's a very good article about it, and by using the following Url. one gets working links too: "Iran's Bourse, the Dollar and "Pre-emptive" War - http://tinyurl.com/86q5u - We all know (hopefully) from reading Dr. Gordon Prather - [http://tinyurl.com/cunzo] - 3 times a week here at Antiwar.com and World Net Daily (and even from rags like the Washington Post) that if the government of Iran began to enrich uranium for nuclear bomb making purposes right now, it would take them 10 years to make one simple gun-type nuke (Prather's term) (and never mind the delivery system). In other words, all the hype about some imminent nuclear danger is a pack of lies.

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., the great witness to the Office of Special Plans, has said repeatedly that she believes one of the principal reasons for the invasion of Iraq was that in the year 2000 Saddam Hussein had begun demanding Euros instead of dollars as payment for "his" oil.

Now there is this incredible article by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D., along the lines of Dr. Prather's piece this weekend speculating that the reason the neocons and the Israeli government keep asserting Iran will have nukes and require bombing by March, is because they are about to open a new oil and gas exchange - the Iranian Bourse, and will be demanding payment in Euros.

This is bad news for the US dollar because the Saudis et al. demand dollars for their oil and the powers of the Earth must therefore hold large amounts of US currency. Iran, a state run by people who for some reason aren't happy with us, plan to demand Euros in their new exchange. That could lead to the government banks of the world - [http://tinyurl.com/9jypc] - to diversify their holdings and a flooding of the US with our government's paper money that has been held in those foreign accounts. Then comes inflation - bad inflation.

So the owners of the London Banking Establishment* have their global media machine and the Israeli Minister of War Shaul Mofaz's comment, and overtly threatening a military strike by the neocon war machine, adding to growing tensions with Iran, leading to a new nuclear holocaust by them of our world.

With the same pack of lies which was the false basis for most of the neocon's wars for profit.*

WHAT THE NEOCONS DO IS NOT A POLICY BUT A PLAGUE.

THEY MUST BE STOPPED AND JAILED.

BEFORE THEY KILL US ALL.


Henk Ruyssenaars


Related:

* In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around the US administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran. - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/7cta8

* Defend the people of Iran from a nuclear attack! - Url.: http://chimesofreedom.blogspot.com/

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
http://forpressfound.blogspot.com/
Editor: Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

[gilipolla]

Other associated Forum Archives

Iran Propaganda
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1311

Demonising IRAN
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1141

Nuclear Weapons Stealth Takeover
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1008

'The Guns of August: Hitler in the Bunker', LaRouche Warns
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=980

Armageddon Network Characters
http://www.medialens.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=208

[gilipolla]

LOBBYING POLITICIANS

There's a VERY EASY and FREE way to fax and email your parliamentary representatives. Prepare a draft letter and fax/email it to them using the services provided at http://www.writetothem.com/ and http://www.locata.co.uk/commons/

You will find a comprehensive list of all MPs, MEPs etc at WriteToThem once you tap in yr postcode.

I have done this already and posted the text below to 18 MPs, including Scots MSPs and constituency MEPs. You can do the same, ensuring their fax machines and email inboxes get flooded with letters of concern. Use the text below if you like, modifying it as you wish.

Finally, please circulate this information far and wide.

===============================================
Similar facilities must exist for other countries. With your help, I will publish these hyperlinks as and when I discover them.

USA: Please use the THE COMPLETE LIST OF E-MAIL ADDRESSES & FAX NUMBERS FOR CONGRESS, SENATE & GOVERNORS at http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

QUESTION: Do the DEMOCRATS have an equivalent site?!

AUSTRALIA: FREE FAX AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLITICIANS, http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5165/


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[gilipolla]

http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_9302.shtml
Former UK minister: "No excuse for attacking Iran"
Aug 31, 2005

Former British Energy Secretary Tony Benn warned Wednesday that there was no moral or legal basis for the US or its proxy Israel to attack Iran for refusing to abandon its nuclear power program.

"We would be told that it had been done to uphold the principles of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - an argument that does not stand up to a moment's examination," said Benn.

He warned that US President George W Bush was the "real threat" by not ruling out an attack on Iran, saying the Middle East faces a crisis that could "dwarf even the dangers arising from the war in Iraq."

"Even a conventional weapon fired at a nuclear research center - whether or not a bomb was being made there - would almost certainly release radioactivity into the atmosphere, with consequences seen worldwide as a mini-Hiroshima," the veteran politician said.

As Britain's first Energy Secretary during the 1970s, he revealed that he himself had been under "enormous pressure" to sell nuclear power stations to Iran under the shah's regime.

In an article for the Guardian newspaper Wednesday, Benn said that the moral and legal basis of the NPT convention was based on the agreement of non-nuclear nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if nuclear powers undertook not to extend nuclear arsenals.

But since then, the Americans have launched a "program that would allow them to use nuclear weapons in space, nuclear bunker- busting bombs are being developed, and depleted uranium has been used in Iraq - all of which are clear breaches of the NPT." The 80-year old politician also spoke of the duplicity of the US in allowing Israel to have a massive nuclear weapons program, which it still arms and funds it.

Benn stepped down from parliament in 2001 after being a Labour MP for nearly 50 years. Since then he became a driving force behind Stop the War Coalition, Britain's biggest ever peace campaign group.

He said that it was "inconceivable" that the US House can be contemplating an invasion of Iran. "What must be intended is a US airstrike, or airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations, comparable to Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1981," he said.

The veteran politician suggested it was "easy to understand why President Bush might see the bombing of Iran as a way to regain some of the political credibility he has lost as a result of the growing hostility in America to the Iraq war due to the heavy casualties." "Such an attack, whether by the US or Israel, would be in breach of the UN Charter, as was the invasion of Iraq. But neither Bush, Sharon nor Blair would take any notice of that," he said.

Benn drew parallels with the build-up to the US-led war against Iraq, saying "first we are being told that Iran poses a military threat, because it may be developing nuclear weapons" and then being assured that Bush is "hoping that diplomacy might succeed." "This is just what we were told when Hans Blix was in Baghdad talking to Saddam on behalf of the UN, but we now know, from a Downing Street memorandum leaked some months ago, that the decision to invade had been taken long before that," he told the Guardian.

The former cabinet minister said that his fear was that if a US attack does take place, then Prime Minister Tony Blair "will give it his full support."
"One of his reasons for doing so will be the same as in Iraq:
namely the fear that, if he alienates Bush, Britain's so-called independent deterrent might be taken away," he warned.

As Energy Secretary, Benn said that he learned "Britain is entirely dependent" on the US for the supply of its Trident nuclear warheads and associated technology. "They cannot even be targeted unless the US switches on its global satellite system," he said.

"The irony is that we might be told that Britain must support Bush, yet again, because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction, thus allowing him to kill even more innocent civilians," he said.

[gilipolla]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHR20060101&articleId=1700
Let's Stop a US/Israeli War on Iran
It's More Important Than Halting Nuclear Proliferation

by Bill Christison and Kathleen Christison

January 1, 2006
Counterpunch

The peace movements of the entire world should be in crisis mode right now, working non-stop to prevent the U.S. and Israel from starting a war against Iran. (See the James Petras article in CounterPunch on December 24, 2005 titled Iran in the Crosshairs for the best summary of the present situation.) The reckless and unnecessary dangers arising from such a war are so obvious that one wonders why normal political forces in the two aggressor countries -- both of whom love to glorify themselves as democracies -- would not prevent such a war from happening.

But the "normal political forces" in both the U.S. and Israel have become badly distorted. Democracy has been seriously undermined in both. The cowboy-like personalities and aggressive tendencies of both countries' leaders tend to feed on each other. Domestic political difficulties and coming elections in both countries probably add to the macho inclination of the ruling elites to use force to remove any problems facing them. The glue binding these tendencies together is the ever-strengthening institutional link between defense establishments and military-industrial complexes in both countries, as well as, in the U.S, the growing power and influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) over both major political parties. The entire mix increases the probability, against all common sense, that this absurd war will actually happen.

Nothing else more dangerous to the world, to the Middle East, to the oppressed Palestinians, or to the true interests of the United States is happening today -- anywhere. Americans who do not want an eruption of a new world war, started by our own government, ought to be strongly lobbying the Bush administration and all members of Congress against supporting any military action by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Globally, people who oppose such a war should be lobbying their own governments in similar fashion.

Background

It is worthwhile to discuss briefly the broader context of why a war with Iran today seems a real possibility. During his all-out public relations effort in late 2005 to regain support for his policies in the Middle East, Bush has made it clear that he plans to continue his drive for complete victory in the "War on Terrorism," without making significant changes in his own, very aggressive, foreign policies. Those policies will make this planet a less safe, more unjust place to live for most people around the world, as well as for most of us living in the U.S. The special relationship between the U.S. and Israel has long played an important role in these aggressive policies.

Outside the United States, it is widely understood that one of the true motives -- not the exclusive motive but a real and significant one -- behind the Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq was the desire of the neocons in Washington to conquer Iraq in order to benefit Israel. Although a few of the big-name neocons (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis "Scooter" Libby) have left high-visibility positions for various reasons, many remain, and it is clear that Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice have taken as their own the main tenets of neocon beliefs.

Inside the U.S., on the other hand, the pressure of the neocons for war on Israel's behalf, or any hint that Bush himself participates in that pressure, is hardly ever mentioned. This taboo on discussing the Israeli link to the war in Iraq, enforced by the threat of being labeled anti-Semitic, introduces major distortions into practically every effort to examine and change policies that are causing massive hatred of the U.S. around the world.

But right now, three of the long-existing "problems" in the Middle East (i.e., situations that have been made problems largely by our own actions) have reached critical stages that may, if Washington's policies do not change quite quickly, result in our losing even the remnants of stability and peace that remain in that region today. The world could face instead nuclear warfare or, at a minimum, a practically unending "clash of civilizations" and conventional warfare at a much higher level than exists now. The first, and the most important right now, of the three problems is the main subject of this article: the problem that arises from the determined U.S. and Israeli policy of preventing Iran from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. The second and third problems, also situations brought on by the U.S. itself, have to do with Syria and the Palestinians. In the long run, they are also very important, but they are less urgent for now. These other problems will be considered briefly at the end of this article.

As was the case with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, one of the underlying causes of all these "problems" in the Middle East has been the success of the neocons in persuading the Bush administration to support aggressively the goals of the Israeli government throughout the area. And here again, the fear of being charged with anti-Semitism causes many Americans quietly to accept the taboo on discussing the Israeli link to the Bush administration's foreign policies. This is an absurd situation. Criticizing Israeli (or U.S.) policies and urging specific changes in those policies is not anti-Semitic (or anti-American). The arrogance of anyone who suggests the contrary is appalling. The following paragraphs contain suggestions on how we should work to remedy those aspects of this absurdity that bear on Iran and nuclear weapons.


What should be done to change U.S. policy on Iran's nuclear program?

First of all, don't fall into the trap of accepting Iran's public claims that it is not attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. Many of the nations that now have such weapons made similar claims while they were developing the weapons. Israel did so throughout the first half of the 1960s, engaging in elaborate subterfuges even when dealing with U.S. inspectors who occasionally came looking for weapons work. The Israeli claims were so much garbage (see Israeli author Avner Cohen's book, Israel and the Bomb). Then, after it acquired its first nuclear explosive device almost 40 years ago now, Israel simply adopted a well publicized policy of ambiguity and stopped talking publicly about whether it had any weapons. India and Pakistan also both claimed not to be working on weapons when in fact they were. Their claims were garbage too, which they quickly threw away once they joined the nuclear club and possessed their own deterrent. Iran almost certainly intends to do the same, and its public claims to the contrary are also almost certainly worthless.

The principal point to start with is that, unless the U.S. and Israel (and other nations as well) all agree to work seriously toward eliminating their own nuclear weapons, any Iranian government will consider that it has as much right as the rest of us to such weapons. Essentially, even if Iran, under pressure, were to sign new agreements, now or in the future, to forgo nuclear weapons, the new agreements would be meaningless unless the U.S., Israel, and other nuclear nations ended their own monumental hypocrisy of insisting that they can keep and expand their nuclear arsenals, while non-nuclear nations may not acquire such arsenals. In the eyes of most Muslims around the world and many other people too, Iran, with a population of close to 70 million, has at least as much right as Israel, with a population less than one-tenth as large, to have nuclear weapons

Most supporters of the global peace movements by definition oppose the solving of international problems through warfare, and they also oppose the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most are also aware that the critical bargain reached in the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) -- the bargain that made the treaty possible -- was a trade-off: the acceptance of continued non-nuclear-weapons status by states without those weapons, in return for the simultaneous agreement by states possessing nuclear weapons to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear, and complete and general, disarmament. This latter provision had no teeth, and certainly many "realists" in the U.S. foreign policy establishment expected that it would not and could not be enforced. Nevertheless, the existence of this provision was necessary to the NPT's ratification by numerous countries, and it gives any state dissatisfied with progress toward nuclear disarmament an excuse to abrogate or ignore the treaty.

Most people will not bother to make the niceties of international law an issue in this matter, but the question of which is more important, stopping the further proliferation of nuclear weapons to Iran or stopping our own side from instigating a war against Iran, is vital. The answer should be clear: The single most urgent objective we should have right now is to prevent a war, possibly nuclear, from being started by the U.S. and/or Israel against Iran. To repeat, such a war would be disastrous, and we should be doing whatever we can, with the highest possible priority, to prevent it from ever happening.

Every peace activist on the globe ought to be in the streets and elsewhere lobbying in support of something very simple: do not attack Iran, even if this means allowing Iran to develop its own nuclear weapons. We should put out the message that it is simply not worth a war, with consequences impossible to foresee, to prevent Iran from obtaining such weapons. From 1945 until we invaded Iraq in 2003, we never once took military action to prevent other nations from developing nuclear weapons. We relied instead on deterrence and containment (to prevent other nations from using such weapons after they had been developed). These may not be perfect policies, but they have a successful track record and can probably be applied more successfully than other policies to subnational groups as well as nation-states. The point is that these are still better policies than the recklessness of preemption, and we should use these policies in lobbying against U.S involvement of any kind in military actions or coup attempts against Iran. We should also very definitely support an effort to tie future U.S. aid to Israel to Israel's not engaging in military action against Iran.

We are talking here about supporting (by our silence), or opposing (by vociferous lobbying), what could become major, serious warfare -- warfare that could easily become global, and also could easily cause greater difficulties for the peoples of the Middle East than any they have yet faced from U.S. policies. With an election campaign intensifying the political volatilities of Israeli politics, with possibly fast-moving new uncertainties and vulnerabilities arising among both Republicans and Democrats jousting for advantage in a U.S. election year, and with a new, inexperienced president in Iran who, so far at least, believes aggressive speech strengthens his political position, the dangers in the situation are evident. As each week passes and no movement occurs anywhere -- particularly in Washington -- to reduce tensions by changing policies, the risk grows of a mistake that will lead to new hostilities, and possibly nuclear warfare. How many Iranians might we and the Israelis kill? How many Israelis might die? How many Americans?


How should the U.S. change its policies with respect to Syria?

The issues of Syria and Palestine are related to U.S. policy toward Iran. Policy on Syria today is to put constant pressure on that country's ruler, Bashar al-Assad, with the ultimate objective of ousting and replacing him with someone (not yet named by the Americans) who would be even more subservient to U.S. and Israeli desires. Assad himself has moved a considerable way toward subservience, giving the U.S. considerable help on intelligence matters and accepting certain U.S. prisoners "rendered" to his regime for purposes of torture, but the U.S., unsatisfied, keeps intensifying the pressure. The U.S. and Israel have succeeded in making it more difficult for Syria to provide support for the Palestinian resistance against Israel's occupation, but Damascus still provides some refuge for Hezbollah personnel.

The recent assassinations of anti-Syrian leaders in Lebanon have provided new opportunities for the Bush administration to ratchet up its criticism of Syria still further, although the evidence of Syrian involvement in the assassinations is weak. It is at least possible that other groups, such as the Israel's Mossad or the CIA, are responsible.

Whatever the truth behind events in Lebanon, the events themselves could offer a U.S. president who is in some trouble at home the possibility of a low-cost, low-risk foreign policy victory if he could pull off, perhaps with the help of Mossad, a quick covert action that ousted Assad. Act II of a grand show might then proceed -- another U.S. occupation installed, another nation in the Middle East "democratized," elections held a year or two later and a puppet government set up, step-by-step takeovers of the economy implemented by U.S. and Israeli interests, further isolation of the Palestinians from other Arabs -- all in all, another great victory for the U.S-Israeli partnership.

Or so Bush, at least, might believe. In reality, the situation might turn into another morass like Iraq. But months might pass and the U.S. congressional election of November 2006 might be history before we knew that for sure. Might not a man like Bush who revels in chance-taking consider this a pretty good gamble? Meanwhile, how many Syrians would we kill? How many badly wounded Americans would come home to a questionable quality of life because bulletproof vests saved their lives? If Israeli military units moved into Syria (to help us, of course), how many Israelis would die?

We should all be lobbying members of Congress not to cast any votes in favor of aggressive U.S. policies toward Syria. Such votes cannot help, and will only take resources from, a majority of the world's peoples and a majority of Americans. Syria (and Lebanon) are not places where the United States benefits in any way from being a global policeman. While the neocons and probably some present top Israeli officials do see benefits to be gained from U.S. intervention in Syria, other senior and many ordinary Israelis do not. We also should urge members of Congress to tie further aid to Israel to Israel's not becoming involved in any military actions against Syria.


How should the U.S. change its policies with respect to the Palestinians?

We should make it as clear as we possibly can to members of Congress that the Palestine-Israel problem is the most central long-term issue to the peoples of the Middle East. Most Arab leaders have been so co-opted by the U.S. that they no longer object to our support for Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, but the peoples of the area are a different story. They do care about and object strenuously to that oppression.

Regardless of what happens anywhere in the Middle East, we will never end the "War on Terrorism" without, first, a solution to the Palestine-Israel issue that provides as much justice to the Palestinians as to the Israelis. Although many supporters of Israel try to compare the several-centuries-long U.S. conquest of American Indians to the Israeli attempt to conquer the Palestinians, there is no valid comparison. Quite apart from the immorality of any attempt to emulate the U.S. atrocity against its indigenous population, there are practical reasons why the comparison cannot be made. The population balances, for instance, are entirely different; there are proportionately far more Palestinians than there were American Indians.

Nevertheless, Israeli and U.S. policy in the West Bank, semi-hidden by a bogus withdrawal from Gaza, continues to seek permanent conquest of more and more territory. The daily injustices and cruelties imposed by Israel and the U.S. on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank are today worse than they have been in the previous 38 years of occupation. This is not only a major human rights issue facing the United States. It is also a very large cause of the hatred against the U.S. throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds.

What is new in the last few months is Israeli intensification of settlement activity in the West Bank, particularly in East Jerusalem; intensification of land-confiscation (with no recompense to Palestinians); a speed-up in construction of the separation wall and of new "Israeli-citizens-only" roads, both of which also require more land-confiscation; more demolitions of Palestinian houses; and new, harsh Israeli measures of other types aimed specifically at forcing Palestinians out of areas, in which they have lived for generations, in and near Jerusalem.

All of this takes place with little Western media attention; the media devoted considerably more attention to the carefully televised "suffering" of the relatively few Israeli settlers forced to move from their luxurious homes in Gaza. The Israelis, with heavy U.S. financing, are busily establishing more "facts on the ground" that will make any peaceful solution providing equal justice to both sides less possible. That does not mean that Israel will "win." Given the determination and inexhaustibility (and large numbers) of Palestinians, it just means more terrorism, killing, and cruelty on both sides. It is a shocking waste of lives, and the U.S. is prolonging it by its one-sided support of Israel. Let's put it baldly. U.S. policy on Israel and Palestine is simply immoral in its one-sidedness. It should take no one who investigates what is actually happening to Palestinians in the West Bank more than 30 seconds to decide that the oppression and cruelties that can be seen there daily should be stopped. Here too, further U.S. aid to Israel should be directly tied to Israel's stopping the oppression and cruelties to Palestinians.

The position we should take in lobbying members of Congress is simple and obvious: Stop the one-sidedness. It is a blot that will stain all our other activities and policies in the Middle East, and probably elsewhere, for years to come. The longer we avoid changing this situation, the larger the blot will become.

Conclusion

All of these issues -- Iran, Syria, and Palestine-Israel -- are interrelated, and each issue enhances the perception around the world that the U.S. is hypocritical, oppressive, and interested only in advancing Israel's interests. All grow out of the one-sided U.S. support for Israel, and none will be resolved without a change in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. To put it baldly again, the widespread perception of the U.S. as immoral and unjust interferes in a quite serious way with the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. Neither we nor Israel "wins" if U.S. policy continues on the same path.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence Officer and as Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 30 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

They both can be reached at christison@counterpunch.org.