Israel's war on Lebanon is an integral part of a US sponsored "military
The war on Lebanon, which has resulted in countless atrocities including the
destruction of the nation's economy and civilian infrastructure, is "a
stage" in a sequence of carefully planned military operations.
Lebanon constitutes a
strategic corridor between Israel and North-western Syria. The underlying
objective of this war was the militarization of Lebanon, including the stationing
of foreign troops, as a precondition for carrying out the next phase of a broader
Formally under a UN mandate, the foreign troops to be stationed on Lebanese
soil on the immediate border with Syria, will be largely although not exclusively
from NATO countries. This military force mandated by the UN Security Council
is by no means neutral. It responds directly to US and Israeli interests.
Moreover, the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops, following the February 2005
assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has contributed to opening
up a "new space". The withdrawal of Syrian troops served Israeli interests.
The timely pullout was of strategic significance: it was a major factor in the
timing and planning of the July 2006 IDF attacks on Lebanon.
In the aftermath of the Israeli bombings and the "ceasefire", UN
Security Council Resolution 1701, drafted by France and the US in close consultation
with the Israeli government, has paved the way for the militarization of Lebanon,
under a bogus UN mandate.
The Next Phase of the Middle East War
Confirmed by official statements and military documents, the US in close coordination
with Britain (and in consultation with its NATO partners), is planning to launch
a war directed against Iran and Syria. US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has
already initiated the draft of a UN Security Council resolution with a view
to imposing sanctions on Tehran for its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons
program. Whether this resolution is adopted is not the main issue. The US may
decide to proceed in defiance of the Security Council, following a veto by Russia
and/or China. The vote of France and Britain, among the permanent members has
already been secured.
US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack, pursuant to a sanctions
regime on Iran, with or without UN approval, would involve a large scale deployment
comparable to the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March
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)
The aerial bombing plans have been fully operational ("in an advanced
state of readiness") since June 2005. 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.
In November 2004, 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" [Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US
Strategic Command declared "an advanced state of readiness".
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,'
The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately The Pentagon
will decide on the sequence; " if and when" to launch military operations
against Iran and Syria. Israeli military actions and those of other coalition
partners including Turkey, would be carried out in close coordination with the
While the threat of punitive aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities
have been announced repeatedly by the Bush administration, recent developments
suggest that an all out ground war is also under preparation.
CONPLAN constitutes only one component of the Middle East military agenda.
CONPLAN 8022 does not contemplate a ground war. It posits "no boots on
the ground", which was the initial assumption envisaged in relation to
the proposed aerial attacks on Iran.
US and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial "punitive
bombings" will almost inevitably lead coalition forces into a ground war
scenario in which they will have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic
missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities
in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into
a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces
inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.
The foreign troops stationed in Lebanon under UN mandate would respond to the
diktats of the US led coalition and the prior commitments reached with Washington
and Tel Aviv in the context of the various military alliances (NATO-Israel,
Turkey-Israel, GUUAM, etc).
These military preparations have also been marked, quite recently, by the conduct
of war games.
In late August, Iran
was involved in the conduct of war games in major regions of the country,
including border areas with Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Iran's Defense Minister General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar has confirmed the deployment
of enhanced military capabilities including weapons systems and troops on the
Iranian border: "[Iranian] forces are supervising all movements by trans-regional
troops and their agents around the Iranian borders" (FARS
news, 2 September 2006)
Iran War Games August 2006
Barely acknowledged by the Western media, military exercises organized by Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
(CSTO) were also launched in late August. These war games, officially tagged
as part of a counter terrorism program, were conducted in response to US-Israeli
military threats in the region including the planned attacks against Iran. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, August 2006). In turn, China an Kazakhstan held concurrent
war games under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Azerbaijan and neighboring Georgia have close military ties to Washington.
Both countries are part of GUUAM, a military alliance with the US and NATO.
is a close ally of Israel. Since 2005, Israel has deployed Special Forces
in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration
of the Ankara government: Pakistan is also a close ally of the US and Britain.
Georgia also has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Meanwhile, the USS Enterprise,
America's largest aircraft carrier is en route to the Persian Gulf.
Map; Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research 2003. Click
US Troop Build-up
US troops in Iraq have been increased to 140,000 as confirmed by recent Pentagon
statements (Reuters, 2 September 2006) These plans have been coupled with a
the compulsory recall of "inactive servicemen" as well as the expansion
of mercenary forces. (Mahdi
Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Pentagon justifies the troop build-up as part of a "routine"
process of replacement and rotation, required in its ongoing war against "terrorists"
in Iraq. The speeding up of military recruitment is also occurring in the core
countries of the Anglo-American coalition including Great
(see also Recruiting
Canada). Canada and Australia are aligned with the US. Australian Prime
Minister John Howard as well as Canada's Steven Harper have confirmed their
commitment to the US-Israeli war and have promised an expansion of the armed
forces in their respective countries.
Meanwhile British troops stationed in Iraq have been redeployed to the Iranian
border in southern Iraq. This redeployment has been casually presented by Britain's
Ambassador to Iraq as part of a "crack down on smuggling and the entrance
of weapons into Iraq from Iran".
While British officials are maintaining no desire or preparations for a conflict
with Iran, more British troops are being mobilized and deployed to Iraq at
the same time. The Light Infantry of the 2nd Battalion, another unit with
rapid deployment capabilities, is deploying to the southern Iraqi border with
Iran. The 2nd Battalion is being sent to Iraq under the pretext of working
in the Rear Operations Battle Group which will provide escorts for military
convoys and security for British forces and bases in Basra. (See
Mahdi Darius Namzaroaya, August 2006)
The Role of Israel
In the wake of the war on Lebanon. Israel's military plans and pronouncements
are increasingly explicit. Tel Aviv has announced plans to wage a pre-emptive
"full-scale war" against Iran and Syria, implying the deployment of
both air and ground force. These war plans are now said to at the top of the
"Israel is preparing for a possible war with both Iran and Syria, according
to Israeli political and military sources."
“The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense
agenda, higher than the Palestinian one,” said an Israeli defense source.
Shortly before the war in Lebanon Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, the commander
of the air force, was placed in charge of the “Iranian front”,
a new position in the Israeli Defense Forces. His job will be to command any
future strikes on Iran and Syria."
In the past we prepared for a possible military strike against Iran’s
nuclear facilities,” said one insider, “but Iran’s growing
confidence after the war in Lebanon means we have to prepare for a full-scale
war, in which Syria will be an important player.”
As a result of the change in the defense priorities, the budget for the Israeli
forces in the West Bank and Gaza is to be reduced." (Sunday Times, 3
The Western media is beating the drums of war.
The Sunday Times views Israel's war plans as legitimate acts of self defense,
to prevent Tehran from launching an all out nuclear attack on Israel: "Iran
and Syria have ballistic missiles that can cover most of Israel, including Tel
Aviv. An emergency budget has now been assigned to building modern shelters."
The fact that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capabilities as confirmed
by the IAEA report does not seem to be an issue for debate.
Media disinformation has contributed to creating an atmosphere of fear and
intimidation. The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a
foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes,
conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East
which is under attack.
Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into
full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive
war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State
sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911.
The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build
public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism"
which is directed against Syria and Iran.
The antiwar movement has also been weakened.
While China and Russia will oppose the US led war at the diplomatic level as
well as at the UN Security Council, Washington has secured the support of France
and Germany. While Russia and China have military cooperation agreements with
Iran, they would most probably not intervene militarily in favor of Iran.
NATO is broadly supportive of the US led military agenda. In
February 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel.
Weapons against Iran
The use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US and Israel against Iran, is contemplated,
ironically in retaliation for Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
Tactical Nuclear Weapons: B61-11 NEP Thermonuclear Bomb
The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines"
which allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies"
which "possess" or are "developing" weapons of mass destruction
(WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).
CONPLAN 8022, referred to above, 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
-- proliferation 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
The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be coordinated with Israel, which
possesses a sophisticated nuclear arsenal.
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 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 World is at a Critical Crossroads
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. This is not an overstatement. If aerial bombardments
were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation
of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile
attacks using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a "Chernobyl
type" nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation
following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.
Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial
role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing
prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is
now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated
to play a direct role in this military operation.
NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis, which
also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation
agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement
Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and
is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching
military cooperation agreements with
China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic
arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests
in Central Asia and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene
militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active
war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin.
It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US
troops are stationed.
Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation,
which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to
mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey
is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central
Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese
border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq
and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate
these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region
into an integrated war zone. (see map above)
In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute
to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against
coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria.
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.
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.
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.
Pentagon's Second 911
The economic and political dislocations resulting from this military agenda
If the attacks directed against Iran and Syria were to proceed, martial law
and/or a state of emergency could be declared in the US and possibly Britain
on the pretext that the homeland is under attack by Iran sponsored terrorists.
The purpose of these measures would essentially be to curb the antiwar movement
and provide legitimacy to an illegal war.
The Pentagon has intimated in this regard, in an official statement, that "another
[9/11] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate
against some known targets [Iran and Syria]". In a timely statement,
barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President
Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured
and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo
Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
Reversing the Tide of War
The issues raised in this article do not imply that the war will take place.
What the analysis of official statments and military documents confirms is that:
a) the war is part of a political agenda;
b) military plans to launch an attack on Iran and Syria are
"in an advanced stage of readiness".
War is not an inevitable process. War can be prevented through mass action.
The issue is not whether the war will inevitably take place but what
are the instruments at our disposal which will enable us to shunt and ultimately
disarm this global military agenda.
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.
The legitimacy of the war must be addressed. Antiwar sentiment alone does not
disarm a military agenda. 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.
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
There is a sense of urgency. In the weeks and months ahead, the antiwar movement
must act, consistently, and address a number of key issues:
1. The role of media disinformation in sustaining the military agenda
We will not succeed in our endeavours unless the propaganda apparatus
is weakened and eventually dismantled. It is essential to inform our fellow
citizens on the causes and consequences of the US-led war, not to mention
the extensive war crimes and atrocities which are routinely obfuscated by the
media. This is no easy task. It requires an effective counter-propaganda program
which refutes mainstream media assertions.
It is essential that the relevant information and analysis reaches the broader
public. The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates.
The media conglomerates which control network TV and the printed press must
be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.
2. There is opposition within the political establishment in the US
as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces.
While this opposition does not necessarily question to overall direction of
US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the
use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the
Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully
channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the "war on terrorism"
consensus. The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is,
therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense
threatens the future of humanity.
3. The structure of military alliances must be addressed. A timely
shift in military alliances could potentially reverse the course of history.
Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there
are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which
firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well
within the political system itself.
It is essential that the commitments made by European heads of government and
heads of State to Washington be cancelled or nullified, through pressure exerted
at the appropriate political levels. This applies, in particular, to the unbending
support of the Bush adminstration, expressed by President Jacques Chirac and
Chancellor Angela Merkel.
The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting
the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing the tide.
Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France
4. The holding of large antiwar rallies is important and essential.
But in will not in itself reverse the tide of war unless it is accompanied by
the development of a cohesive antiwar network.
What is required is a grass roots antiwar network, a mass movement
at national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the
main military and political actors, as well as their corporate sponsors,
and which would ultimately be instrumental in unseating those who rule in our
name. The construction of this type of network will take time to develop. Initially,
it should focus on developing an antiwar stance within existing citizens' organizations
(e.g. trade unions, community organizations, professional regroupings, student
federations, municipal councils, etc.).
5. 9/11 plays a crucial and central role in the propaganda campaign.
The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely
by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public
opinion in support of a global military agenda.
Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy
of the "war on terrorism".
Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to
stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards.
Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation
of the US intelligence apparatus. Several of the terror alerts were based on
fake intelligence as revealed in the recent foiled
"liquid bomb attack". There is evidence that the several of the
terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties
were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. (e.g Bali
The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by
the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved
in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.
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. His most recent book is America’s
"War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.
Read from Looking Glass News
Another Step in the Shock and Awe of Iran
Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border
Bush will Choose War Against Iran
and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats
the United States will attack Iran in 2006
will attack Iran, Syria in October: Gul
Govt Sources Confirm War With Iran Is On
Route To Iran -- Through Lebanon?
Military Officer Warns Of Major Terrorist Attack Looming; Cheney Consumed Day
And Night With Nuclear Retaliation In Iran
drums of war sound for Iran