US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
1 May 2005
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
"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
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"
"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
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
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
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly
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
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
"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
"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
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
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.
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
"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.)
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
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
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.
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500
thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system,
Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th
Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and
China in the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal.
Although dwarfed by the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and
Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel
nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly
recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli
nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of
about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that
Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated,
largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle
East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are
"neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs
designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing
blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to
kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include
ballistic missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size
from "city busters" larger than the Hiroshima Bomb
to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of
all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly
greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have
been reluctant to discuss, let alone challenge, the Israeli
monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often leading to
incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action
strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass
destruction directly and honestly on the table and action
agenda would have several salutary effects. First, it would
expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East
arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek
their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque
double standard which sees the U.S. and Europe on the one hand
condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing weapons of mass
destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling the
principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy
would focus international public attention, resulting in
increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass
destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally,
a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East
and a comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely.
Unless and until the world community confronts Israel over its
covert nuclear program it is unlikely that there will be any
meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a fact
that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel's
Nuclear Arsenal, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
become a Member of Global Research
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as
long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of
the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in
print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: email@example.com
contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are
making such material available to our readers under the provisions of
"fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use"
you must request permission from the copyright owner.
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.
From: "mark urban" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005
Cheney Orders STRATCOM To Prepare Nuclear Attack Against Iran
Cheney Orders STRATCOM To Prepare Nuclear Attack Against Iran
Politcal activists and observers have sent out a "world wide red
alert' in response to what they called Cheney's
"Hitler-like" state of mind.
July 28, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A number of political observers and activists today sounded `a red
alert' after reports surfaced this week Vice President Dick
Cheney directly ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make
contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath
of another `9/11 type attack' on America.
Cheney's orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the
Aug 1, 2005, issue of The American Conservative. Geraldi was
unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:
"Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the
Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in
the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's
"not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of
terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi's
The statement was then distributed widely over the internet as a
number of political observers have issued "world wide"
warning statements," declaring Cheney's order to be
interpreted as "sounding the bell for World War III."
In response to Cheney's order, outspoken political activist and former
candidate for U.S. President, Lyndon La Rouche, Wednesday issued a
"world wide" internet warning covering the time period of
August 2005, saying:
"Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the
circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the
recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike
against Iran.. "The danger of such a mad,
Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even
further heightened, were the United States Congress to stick with its
present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until September 4.
With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would
almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on
In the warning distributed widely throughout the world on July 27,
LaRouche based his alarming assessment on a series of factors reported
to him over the recent days, beginning with the qualified report, from
a former U.S. intelligence official, published in the American
The report claims that Cheney already ordered the Strategic
Command to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical
nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a
"new 9/11-style attack" on the United States.
And as reported several months ago, La Rouche said the Bush
Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant
"mini-nukes" under the control of theater military
commanders, as part of a new Global Strike doctrine, a doctrine
originally conceived when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under
George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s.
"The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair with his
own "Reichstag fire" incident, and the full resources of the
British "liberal imperial" faction can now be expected to
weigh in behind the brutish Cheney circles in Washington, added La
"The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of
August" plan in discussions I've had with colleagues is the
pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's state of mind. Cheney
is living out an American version of "Hitler in the bunker,"
lashing out at Republican Senators who have dared to resist his mad
tirades, accusing anyone who fails to follow his orders—including
senior members of the United States Senate—of being
"traitors" and worse."
For more informative articles, go to www.arcticbeacon.com.