69forever
Incorrigible
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2003
- Posts
- 28,777
A sourse of mine that is credible forwarded this to me this week. It's long and noted with links.
In short, the U.S. has gotten N.A.T.O. to sign off on the use of conventional and tactical nuclear weapons against Iran as early as March of this year. New developments even have Russia lining up. I live in the U.S. I dissaprove of the totalitarism that is being forced down our throats. I'd hope that the pendulum has swung with recent disclosures of greed and graft. Is it to late? Are they releasing the four horsemen using nukes against Iran?
I apologize for the format....it's to long for me to adjust. If someone wants, please do. Feel free to forward to press contacts. This is being whitewashed.
The author's bio can be reviewed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714
Nuclear War against Iran
By Michel Chossudovsky
January 3, 2006
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)
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.
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 auritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these
meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria
involving the US, Israel 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. The earth-penetrating
capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests
show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped
from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the
ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion
energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts.
Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result
in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300
kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge
crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation
field over a large area.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction
between conventional and nuclear weapons:
'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The
implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being
brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort
of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,'
said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own
propaganda.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear
weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a
weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political
obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has
accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation
of moreuseable nuclear weapons."
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of
World Peace.
"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechia Vanunu.
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. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).
Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons
militery argon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed
against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant
Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in
combating weapons of mass destruction."
To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.
Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):
"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.
'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command
was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross- functional
awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for
STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept
of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational
requirements and integrated planning process.'
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving 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,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.
Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that
the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre- planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words
to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the
Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of
staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops. 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.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)
The Role of Israel
Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional
and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, 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 ) .
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
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-28) 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
Extension of the War
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 Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq
and Palestine. 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 last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the
acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October,
with Moscow's collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to
give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a
pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies
that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah's beard.
What's more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to
sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided
missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)
Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.
In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises
as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey
bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli
army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement
reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to
stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the
manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not
traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been
scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military
units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the
area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time
when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of
cooperating with America in espionage operations against its
neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab
press has been publishin various reports abot Ankara's readiness or, at
least, agreement in priciple to carry out negotiations about its
soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring
Services Translation)
Concluding remarks
The implications are overwhelming.
The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.
Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.
A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North
America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.
This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.
What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and
internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the
forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels,
which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.
Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller
"The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is
Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of
the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca
He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His
most recent book is entitled: America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,
Related article: Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
In short, the U.S. has gotten N.A.T.O. to sign off on the use of conventional and tactical nuclear weapons against Iran as early as March of this year. New developments even have Russia lining up. I live in the U.S. I dissaprove of the totalitarism that is being forced down our throats. I'd hope that the pendulum has swung with recent disclosures of greed and graft. Is it to late? Are they releasing the four horsemen using nukes against Iran?
I apologize for the format....it's to long for me to adjust. If someone wants, please do. Feel free to forward to press contacts. This is being whitewashed.
The author's bio can be reviewed at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code= CH20060103&articleId=1714
Nuclear War against Iran
By Michel Chossudovsky
January 3, 2006
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)
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.
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 auritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these
meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria
involving the US, Israel 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. The earth-penetrating
capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests
show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped
from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the
ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion
energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts.
Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result
in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300
kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge
crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation
field over a large area.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction
between conventional and nuclear weapons:
'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The
implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being
brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort
of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,'
said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own
propaganda.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear
weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a
weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political
obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has
accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation
of moreuseable nuclear weapons."
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of
World Peace.
"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechia Vanunu.
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. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).
Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons
militery argon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed
against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant
Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in
combating weapons of mass destruction."
To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.
Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):
"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.
'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command
was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross- functional
awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for
STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept
of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational
requirements and integrated planning process.'
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving 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,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.
Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that
the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre- planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words
to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the
Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of
staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops. 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.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)
The Role of Israel
Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional
and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, 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 ) .
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
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-28) 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
Extension of the War
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 Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq
and Palestine. 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 last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the
acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October,
with Moscow's collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to
give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a
pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies
that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah's beard.
What's more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to
sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided
missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)
Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.
In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises
as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey
bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli
army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement
reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to
stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the
manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not
traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been
scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military
units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the
area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time
when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of
cooperating with America in espionage operations against its
neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab
press has been publishin various reports abot Ankara's readiness or, at
least, agreement in priciple to carry out negotiations about its
soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring
Services Translation)
Concluding remarks
The implications are overwhelming.
The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.
Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.
A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North
America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.
This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.
What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and
internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the
forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels,
which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.
Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller
"The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is
Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of
the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca
He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His
most recent book is entitled: America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,
Related article: Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Last edited:
