Philip Giraldi, a former intelligence officer in the CIA (and DIA), claims that the United States is developing a plan for the bombing of supposed military targets in Iran, which would include the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The US strike would take place after a 9/11-type terrorist attack on the US. However, the US attack would not depend on Iran actually being involved in the terrorism. In short, the planned attack on Iran would be analogous to the unprovoked attack on Iraq.

Could this criminal insanity be possibly true? Would the United States really launch an unprovoked nuclear attack? Giraldi is a reputable source and has provided information on Iran to Seymour Hersh in the past. Moreover, other articles have come out indicating that the United States has developed contingency plans to use nuclear weapons to attack military installations in Iran and North Korea. (I have included an article by William Arkin from the Washington Post). Giraldi adds that a terrorist attack on the US would serve as the pretext for putting the plan into action.

Now could it be implemented? Certainly, the 9/11 terrorism led to the eventual attack on Iraq (neocons wanted to attack Iraq immediately after September 11), so another terrorist attack could be used as a pretext to attack Iran. I (along with knowledgeable people such as Scott Ritter) expected the United States to either have attacked Iran by now, or at least be far advanced in its propaganda offensive. While the Bush administration has talked about the danger of Iran, the propaganda offensive has not approached the intensity achieved during the 2002-2003 build-up for the attack on Iraq. Undoubtedly the problems in Iraq and war weariness of the American people have made such a propaganda offensive less viable at this moment. Also, many Americans now realize the war lies the Bush administration has relied upon, so any propaganda offensive, by itself, might be counterproductive. However, a new catastrophic terrorist event could so traumatize and anger a large sector of the American public as to provide a window of opportunity to launch an attack on Iran. The terror attack would be immediately followed by a massive propaganda barrage linking Iran to the terrorism. The idea that Iran is behind all terrorism has already appeared in the writing of neocons Michael Ledeen, Kenneth Timmerman and others. I have attached an article on the current effort to demonize Iran. http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/ft01.html

Perhaps the most extreme propaganda piece is "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," by Jerome R. Corsi, which appears to be for average and sub-average IQ types and has been made into a video. It involves the nuclear bombing of the US by terrorists who are equipped by Iran. "The scenario described in ‘Atomic Iran’ shows that a 150-kiloton IND exploded in New York would reduce much of the city to rubble. Some 1.5 million people would be killed instantly, with another 1.5 million certain to die over the next few days." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43766 (I have attached this article too)

Naturally, Israel and its supporters are spearheading the move to attack on Iran. It should be emphasized that Israel has for some time regarded Iran as a serious threat. It is a threat to Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and it provides support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to a number of Palestinian resistance groups. My article "The future of the global War on Terror: Next stop, Iran" www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_future.htm provides information on this issue. My article came out in October 2004, but Israel continues to voice its serious concerns. Some recent comments follow. The Jerusalem Post of June 29 reported a presentation by the head of the IDF Intelligence Corps research division that Iran is committed to building a nuclear bomb, which would help it spread the Islamic revolution across the Middle East. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1119925651633&p=1101615860782

In late June, Israeli ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon emphasized that Iran must be stopped from developing nuclear weapons. "The clock is ticking, and time is not on our side," Ayalon said. http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/israel_iran

Sharon has supposedly handed Bush photographs of what are supposed to be Iran's nuclear installations - http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo04132005.html –which are certainly as accurate as the Israeli intelligence information on Saddam's threatening WMD.

And Richard Perle was the big hit of this May's AIPAC conference in Washington with his call for an attack on Iran. The danger of Iran was featured in an AIPAC multimedia show, "Iran's Path to the Bomb." As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank described the multimedia show: "The exhibit, worthy of a theme park, begins with a narrator condemning the International Atomic Energy Agency for being ‘unwilling to conclude that Iran is developing nuclear weapons’ (it had similar reservations about Iraq) and the Security Council because it ‘has yet to take up the issue.’ In a succession of rooms, visitors see flashing lights and hear rumbling sounds as Dr. Seuss-like contraptions make yellowcake uranium, reprocess plutonium, and pop out nuclear warheads like so many gallons of hummus for an AIPAC conference." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/23/AR2005052301565_pf.html

Since a terrorist attack on the United States is, according to experts, almost inevitable, the Bush administration would likely be given the pretext to launch an attack on Iran. Would a propaganda offensive bring about public support for such an attack? With a Republican Congress it seems quite likely that there would be some type of congressional approval for a strike (not a declaration of war, of course). Maybe the Bush administration would not even seek congressional approval and launch the attack on the basis of alleged self-defense.

Iran is not going to stand around and take it. It is considerably stronger than Iraq. An American attack on Iran using conventional weapons would cause chaos in the Middle East. The use of nuclear weapons would have all types of terrible international ramifications—World War IV against Islam, global terrorist strikes, Sino-Russian reaction, etc.

As Giraldi points out, some Air Force officers are appalled by the nuclear strike plan "but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." Perhaps, no respectable person would want to risk his career to prevent a nuclear war. But this must be done if the United States, and planet Earth, is going to avoid a catastrophe.

_________________________________________

Philip Giraldi, Deep Background

The American Conservative August 1, 2005 p. 27

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.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates