Untitled Document
Will the US launch "Mini-nukes" against Iran in Retaliation
for Tehran's "Non-compliance"?
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.
It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after
Noah and his fabulous Ark.... This weapon is to be used against Japan ...
[We] will use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are
the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless,
merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare
cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new. ... The target
will be a purely military one... It seems to be the most terrible thing ever
discovered, but it can be made the most useful."
(President
Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945)
" The World will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima,
a military base." (President Harry S. Truman in a radio speech to the
Nation, July 1945).
(Listen
to Excerpt of his speech, Hiroshima audio video)
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima in
August 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust
which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large
part of the Middle East .
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb
as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive"
military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield
arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a
mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to
the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in
combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry
Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes"
are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population"
Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new
nuclear doctrine (Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating
conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated"
Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process,
where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of
instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" ,
-i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated
military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered
to be "part of the tool box." from which military commanders can pick
and choose the instruments that they require, in accordance with "evolving
circumstances" in the war theater. (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's
tool box, including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes,
chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction"
when they are used by the United States of America and its coalition partners).
The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders
with a broader range of [nuclear and conventional] strike options to address
immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is
therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration
will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability
of escalation." (Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only
denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain
terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield
will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation".
The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical
nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe
for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which are then
fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria
to geographical commanders in the war theater.
"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions
While the 2001
Nuclear Posture Review sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear
weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran, The
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations goes one step further in blurring
the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military
actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive
capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities,
active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and
industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces
and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense",
it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a
"rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined
future date:
Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that
are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military
history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military
forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will
exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are
at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces
prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined
to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD
use. (Ibid, p. III-1, italics added)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) from becoming
operational. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001
Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with
nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond
with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons –
to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our
forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans
The
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations outlines the procedures governing
the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear
and conventional war operations.
The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war] theater requires that nuclear
and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible"
(DJNO, p 47 italics added, italics added, For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )
The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once
the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the
United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there
is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent
presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction
of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible
and allow for changes in the situation":
"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater
objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives,
including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant
commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements.
All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning
and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response
within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must
have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans.
Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or
modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are
inappropriate.
...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the
geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile
missile launch platforms." Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine (italics added)
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic
combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with
a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining
to nuclear weapons. ( Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine )
We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an
accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary
of Defense Robert
S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides
military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders
with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.
Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been
"reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian
population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage",
there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, The
Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War , Global Research, February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes
on Iran), theater commanders have a degree of latitude. What this signifies
in practice is once the presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison
with theater commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to
be used. Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now considered to be an integral
part of the battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have become "part
of the tool box", used in conventional war theaters.
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state
of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this
operation has been deployed. (For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency
plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing
both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack
on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this
military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details,
Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented.
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.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military
operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with
the bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would
be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command
and Control.
According to Robert
S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,
"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect
new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy
Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller
and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The
new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044....
This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies,
and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range
of contingencies....
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick
use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively,
if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed
the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's
preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines
on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT
PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists as "an actual plan that the Navy
and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,'
(Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005, For further details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).
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.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to
the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National
Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Authorization was issued.
The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded
State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in
Congressional debates. While its contents remains classified, the presumption
is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the
Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests
that the United States is currently:
"deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part
of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli
attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is
Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December
2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
This deployment in Iraq appears to be pursuant to NSPD
35 ,
What the Yenbi Safak report suggests is that conventional weapons would be
used in the first instance, and if Iran were to retaliate in response to US-Israeli
aerial attacks, tactical thermonuclear B61 weapons could then be launched This
retaliation using tactical nuclear weapons would be consistent with the guidelines
contained in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NSPD 17 (see above).
Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role
in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in
September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU
109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order
for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington
confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated
bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005).
The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions
that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi
war theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads,
[was] meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical
objectives." .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16
jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the
first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally.
"Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are
not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor
of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
The report does not confirm whether Israel has stockpiled and deployed the
thermonuclear version of the bunker buster bomb. Nor does it indicate whether
the Israeli made bunker buster bombs are equipped with nuclear warheads. It
is worth noting that this stock piling of bunker buster bombs occurred within
a few months after the Release of the NPSD
35¸ Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization (May 2004).
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic
nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they
were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles
armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines."
(The
Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent developments, which coincide
with the preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has taken delivery of
two new German produced submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed cruise
missiles for a "second-strike" deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February
2006. See also CDI
Data Base)
Israel's tactical nuclear weapons capabilities are not known
Israel's participation in the aerial attacks will also act as a political bombshell
throughout the Middle East. It would contribute to escalation, with a war zone
which could extend initially into Lebanon and Syria. The entire region from
the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia and Afghanistan's Western frontier
would be affected..
__________________________
Israel's Jericho-1 (Luz YA-1) SRBM
Year Deployed: 1973
Dimensions: 10.0 meters length
Weight: 4,500 kilograms
Propulsion: Single-stage
Throw-weight: 500 kilograms
Range: 500 kilometers
Guidance: Inertial
Circular Error Probable: Unknown
Warhead: Single
Yield: Conventional, chemical, or nuclear possible
Locations: Unknown
Number Deployed: 50-100 missiles
Primary Contractor: IAI
__________________________________
The Role of Western Europe
Several Western European countries, officially considered as "non-nuclear
states", possess tactical nuclear weapons, supplied to them by Washington.
The US has supplied some 480 B61 thermonuclear bombs to five non-nuclear NATO
countries including Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey, and
one nuclear country, the United Kingdom. Casually disregarded by the Vienna
based UN Nuclear Watch, the US has actively contributed to the proliferation
of nuclear weapons in Western Europe.
As part of this European stockpiling, Turkey, which is a partner of the US-led
coalition against Iran along with Israel, possesses some 90 thermonuclear B61
bunker buster bombs at the Incirlik nuclear air base. (National
Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Consistent with US nuclear policy, the stockpiling and deployment of B61 in
Western Europe are intended for targets in the Middle East. Moreover, in accordance
with "NATO strike plans", these thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs
(stockpiled by the "non-nuclear States") could be launched "against
targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran"
( quoted in National
Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
Moreover, confirmed by (partially) declassified documents (released under the
U.S. Freedom of Information Act):
"arrangements were made in the mid-1990s to allow the use of U.S. nuclear
forces in Europe outside the area of responsibility of U.S. European Command
(EUCOM). As a result of these arrangements, EUCOM now supports CENTCOM
nuclear missions in the Middle East, including, potentially, against Iran
and Syria"
(quoted in http://www.nukestrat.com/us/afn/nato.htm
italics added)
With the exception of the US, no other nuclear power "has nuclear weapons
earmarked for delivery by non-nuclear countries." (National Resources Defense
Council, op cit)
While these "non-nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing
nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have capabilities
of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran. To say that this
is a clear case of "double standards" by the IAEA and the "international
community" is a understatement.
Germany: De Facto Nuclear Power
Among the five "non-nuclear states" "Germany remains the most
heavily nuclearized country with three nuclear bases (two of which are fully
operational) and may store as many as 150 [B61 bunker buster ] bombs" (Ibid).
In accordance with "NATO strike plans" (mentioned above) these tactical
nuclear weapons are also targeted at the Middle East.
While Germany is not officially a nuclear power, it produces nuclear warheads
for the French Navy. It stockpiles nuclear warheads and it has the capabilities
of delivering nuclear weapons. The European Aeronautic
Defense and Space Company - EADS , a Franco-German-Spanish joint venture,
controlled by Deutsche Aerospace and the powerful Daimler Group is Europe's
second largest military producer, supplying .France's M51 nuclear missile.
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac announced a major shift in
France's nuclear policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that France's nukes should be used
in the form of "more focused attacks" against countries, which were
"considering" the deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical nuclear weapons could be used
in conventional war theaters, very much in line with both US and NATO nuclear
doctrine (See Chirac
shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons , Nucleonics Week January
26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the US sponsored "War on Terrorism".
He presented nuclear weapons as a means to build a safer World and combat terrorism:
Nuclear weapons are not meant to be used against "fanatical terrorists,"
nevertheless "the leaders of states which used terrorist means against
us, as well as those who considered using, in one way or another, weapons
of mass destruction, must understand that they are exposing themselves to
a firm, appropriate response on our side...".(Ibid)
Although Chirac made no reference to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons,
his statement broadly replicates the premises of the Bush administration's 2001
Nuclear Posture Review , which calls for the use of tactical nuclear weapons
against ''rogue states" and "terrorist non-state organizations".
____________________________
The stockpiled weapons are B61 thermonuclear bombs. All the weapons are gravity
bombs of the B61-3, -4, and -10 types.2 .
Those estimates were based on private and public statements by a number of
government sources and assumptions about the weapon storage capacity at each
base.
(National Resources
Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February 2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially rests on two fundamental premises,
which are part of the Bush administration's National Security doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD),
more specifically its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic terrorists".
These are two interrelated statements which are an integral part of the propaganda
and media disinformation campaign.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify
the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror",
--i.e. countries such as Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Iran
is identified as a State sponsor of so-called "non-State terrorist organizations".
The latter also possess WMDs and potentially constitute a nuclear threat. Terrorist
non-state organizations are presented as a "nuclear power".
"The enemies in this [long] war are not traditional conventional military
forces but rather dispersed, global terrorist networks that exploit Islam
to advance radical political aims. These enemies have the avowed aim of acquiring
and using nuclear and biological weapons to murder hundreds of thousands of
Americans and others around the world." (2006
Quadrennial Defense Review ),
In contrast, Germany and Israel which produce and possess nuclear warheads
are not considered "nuclear powers".
In recent months, the pretext for war, building on this WMD-Islamic terrorist
nexus, has been highlighted ad nauseam, on a daily basis by the Western media.
In a testimony to the US Senate Budget Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice accused Iran and Syria of destabilizing the Middle East and providing support
to militant Islamic groups. She described Iran as the "a central banker
for terrorism", not withstanding the fact amply documented that Al Qaeda
has been supported and financed from its inception in the early 1980s by none
other than the CIA. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Who
is Osama bin Laden, Global Research 2001).
"It's not just Iran's nuclear program but also their support for terrorism
around the world. They are, in effect, the central banker for terrorism,"
(Statement to the Senate Budget Committee, 16 February 2006)
"Second 9/11": Cheney's "Contingency Plan"
While the "threat" of Iran's alleged WMD is slated for debate at
the UN Security Council, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed
USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to
another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". This "contingency
plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11" which
has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a military build up in anticipation
of possible aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's
involvement in a terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:
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, Attack
on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August
2005)
Are we to understand that US military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second
9/11, to launch a military operation directed against Iran, which is currently
in a "state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" does not focus on preventing
a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would
be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings would immediately be activated,
prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks
on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the role of the
Taliban government in support of the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that
the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of
9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that "9/11-type terrorist attacks"
are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means
of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment
by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer,
February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran, which would presumably involve
the use of significant numbers of extremely 'dirty’ earth-penetrating
nuclear bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb attack on the United
States, which would be represented in the media as having been carried out by
Iranian agents" (Keefer, February 2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly behind Cheney's "contingency
plan" to wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards territorial and
corporate control over oil and gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans, from the Democrats to the
Republicans. The essential features of Neoconservative discourse were already
in place under the Clinton administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM)
theater strategy in the mid-1990s was geared towards securing, from an economic
and military standpoint, control over Middle East oil.
"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
, italics added)
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas reserves, The US is the first
and foremost military and nuclear power in the World, but it possesses less
than 3 percent of global oil and gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by Muslims, including the Middle
East, North Africa, Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia
and Brunei, possess approximately 80 percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism" and the hate campaign directed against Muslims,
which has gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct relationship to the
"Battle for Middle East Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil reserves
located in countries inhabited by Muslims? Build a political consensus against
Muslim countries, describe them as "uncivilized", denigrate their
culture and religion, implement ethnic profiling against Muslims in Western
countries, foster hatred and racism against the inhabitants of the oil producing
countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into "Islamic terrorism".
Western governments are now accusing Iran of "exporting terrorism to the
West" In the words of Prime Minister Tony Blair:
"There is a virus of extremism which comes out of the cocktail of religious
fanaticism and political repression in the Middle East which is now being
exported to the rest of the world. "We will only secure our future if
we are dealing with every single aspect of that problem. Our future security
depends on sorting out the stability of that region.""You can never
say never in any of these situations." (quoted in the Mirror, 7 February
2006)
Muslims are demonized, casually identified with "Islamic terrorists",
who are also described as constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the terrorists
are supported by Iran, an Islamic Republic which threatens the "civilized
World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it does not possess). In contrast,
America's humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a Critical Cross-roads
It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of
America and Israel.
In recent developments, Western European governments --including the so-called
"non-nuclear states" which possess nuclear weapons-- have joined the
bandwagon. In chorus, Western Europe and the member states of the Atlantic alliance
(NATO) have endorsed the US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran involve "scenarios"
using both nuclear and conventional weapons. While this does not imply the use
of nuclear weapons, the potential danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust
must, nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a focal point of the antiwar
movement, particularly in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and Russia are (unofficially) allies
of Iran, supplying them with advanced military equipment and a sophisticated
missile defense system. It is unlikely that China and Russia will take on a
passive position if and when the aerial bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the "integration" of
"defensive" and "offensive" operations. Moreover, the important
distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its coalition partners including Israel
and Turkey are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to galvanize Western public
opinion in support of a US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's defiance
of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying
the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who
are directly supported by the Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty
nuclear devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against
Iran to ensure the peace". "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue
states"...
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia
directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which
provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a "Just
War". The "Just war" theory serves to camouflage the nature of
US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
What can be done?
The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature
of the US military agenda. Several non-governmental organizations have placed
the blame on Iran, for not complying with the "reasonable demands"
of the "international community". These same organizations, which
are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed
US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach
to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods,
workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers
of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message
should be loud and clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the use of nukes,
the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading
us into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence
community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons,
within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels
of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors
in high office must be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US
sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage
of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm twisting"
exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting of its military
agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle
East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military
agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle East, "expressing concern
over Iran's nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal endorsement of the
governments of the region against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration
has allocated funds in support of Iranian dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media
lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration
and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called
"Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours
of a police State.
The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.
The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens
the future of humanity.
It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate,
particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders
who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective
institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against
war.
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.
To order Chossudovsky's book America's
"War on Terrorism", click here.
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with
a view to spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of nuclear war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related texts by the author:
The
Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, February 2006
Nuclear
War against Iran, January 2006
Planned
US-Israeli Attack on Iran , May 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annex A
Five basic types of US Military Plans:
• Campaign Plan (CAMPLAN): A plan for a series of related military
operations aimed at accomplishing a strategic or operational objective within
a given time and space (e.g., campaign plan for Iraq incorporating a number
of subordinate specific plans).
• Operations Plan (OPLAN): A completed plan required when there is
compelling national interest, when a specific threat exists, and/or when the
nature of the contingency requires detailed planning (e.g., North Korea).
OPLANs contains all formatted annexes (see below), and Time Phased Force and
Deployment Data (TPFDD), a database containing units to be deployed, routing
of deploying units, movement data of forces, personnel, logistics and transportation
requirements. An OPLAN can be used as a basis for development of an Operations
Order (OPORD).
• Operations Plan in Concept Form Only (CONPLAN): An operations plan
in an abbreviated format prepared for less compelling national interest contingencies
than for OPLANs and for unspecific threats. A CONPLAN requires expansion or
alteration to convert into an OPLAN or OPORD. It normally includes a statement
of Strategic Concept and annexes A-D and K (see below). CONPLANs that do have
TPFDDs are usually developed because of international agreement or treaties.
• Functional plans (FUNCPLAN): An operations plan involving the conduct
of military operations in a peacetime or non-hostile environment (e.g., disaster
relief, humanitarian assistance, counter-drug, or peacekeeping operations).
• Theater Security Cooperation and Theater Engagement Plans (TSCPs
and TEPs): Day-to-day plans to set the initial conditions for future military
action in terms of multinational capabilities, U.S. military access, coalition
interoperability, and intelligence
SOURCE: Supplement
to Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the
9/11 World , by William Arkin (Copyright William Arkin, 2005)
