Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Nuclear War Against Iran

Expand Messages
  • Robert Sterling
    Please send as far and wide as possible. Thanks, Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com Nuclear War Against Iran By Michel
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 15, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Please send as far and wide as possible.

      Robert Sterling
      Editor, The Konformist

      Nuclear War Against Iran
      By Michel Chossudovsky

      The launching of an outright war using nuclear warheads against Iran
      is now in the final planning stages.

      Coalition partners, which include the US, Israel and Turkey are
      in "an advanced stage of readiness".

      Various military exercises have been conducted, starting in early
      2005. In turn, the Iranian Armed Forces have also conducted large
      scale military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf in December in
      anticipation of a US sponsored attack.

      Since early 2005, there has been intense shuttle diplomacy between
      Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

      In recent developments, CIA Director Porter Goss on a mission to
      Ankara, requested Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan "to
      provide political and logistic support for air strikes against
      Iranian nuclear and military targets." Goss reportedly asked " for
      special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare and
      monitor the operation." (DDP, 30 December 2005).

      In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to
      the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:
      All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as
      the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of
      March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's
      nuclear energy program. Israeli policymakers believe that their
      threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of
      ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to
      promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military

      (James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs,
      Global Research, December 2005)The US sponsored military plan has
      been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to
      the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.

      "Shock and Awe"

      The various components of the military operation are firmly under US
      Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command
      Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.

      The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close
      coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the
      operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when
      to launch the military operation.

      US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran
      would involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock
      and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
      American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the
      1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would
      more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against
      Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers,
      staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States,
      possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al
      Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen
      suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.

      Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the
      preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that
      would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United
      States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against
      a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as
      conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to
      counterattack against US forces in Iraq

      (See Globalsecurity.org at
      November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of
      a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter
      involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear
      weapons against a "fictitious enemy".

      Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command
      declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)

      While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the
      Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the
      exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a
      planned attack on Iran.

      Consensus for Nuclear War

      No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European

      There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and
      Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the
      diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been
      building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN
      Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a
      nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the
      Middle East Central Asian region.

      Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners
      in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004,
      Israel's top military brass met at NATO headqaurters in Brtussels
      with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin
      nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and
      Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these
      meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria
      involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel
      participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers"
      together with several Arab countries.

      The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat
      to World Peace".

      The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the
      US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not
      part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.

      The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a
      means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

      We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping
      operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's
      nuclear facilities.

      Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"

      The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military
      agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military
      operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear

      The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine
      of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.

      Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the
      devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear
      warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be
      carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an
      object of debate.

      According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical
      nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive
      capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe
      for civilians" because the explosion is underground.

      Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support
      of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being
      presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield
      nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated
      to be used in the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism"
      alongside conventional weapons:
      Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are
      needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states.[Iran, North
      Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too
      destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential
      enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of
      nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear
      weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That
      would make them more effective as a deterrent. ( Opponents Surprised
      By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
      In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a
      means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The
      Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the 'mini-nukes' (with
      a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because
      the explosions 'take place under ground'. Each of these 'mini-
      nukes', nonetheless, constitutes ­ in terms of explosion and
      potential radioactive fallout ­ a significant fraction of the atom
      bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki
      and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and
      15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

      In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive
      capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.

      The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly
      limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into
      dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by
      burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher
      proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock
      compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban
      environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties.
      Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear
      blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material,
      creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.

      Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

      The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction
      between conventional and nuclear weapons:

      'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The
      implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being
      brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort
      of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,'
      said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)We are a
      dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own

      The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear
      weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a
      weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political
      obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has
      accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation
      of more useable nuclear weapons."

      The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of
      World Peace.

      "Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a
      military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear

      But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of
      Mordechai Vanunu,
      The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its
      next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often
      talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a
      Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire
      peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005). Space
      and Earth Attack Command Unit

      A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be
      coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt
      Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command
      units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel
      and Turkey.

      Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility
      for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both
      conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it is slated
      to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions
      of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile
      Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and
      Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "

      In January 2005, at the outset of the military build-up directed
      against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant
      Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in
      combating weapons of mass destruction."

      To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint
      Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was

      JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack
      in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the
      US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of
      nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against
      China and Russia.

      Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of
      readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises.
      The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic
      Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an
      operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe
      using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in
      November used "a fictional country believed to represent North
      Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):
      "The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare
      an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this
      announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed
      Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called
      Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend
      Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.

      'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command
      was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional
      awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for
      STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept
      of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational
      requirements and integrated planning process.'

      'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its
      preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and
      global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when
      directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects
      in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new
      missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.

      Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of
      its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy
      that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue
      states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

      JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear
      attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.

      The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called
      CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual
      plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package
      for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
      CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-
      planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

      'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran,
      North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he
      said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in
      limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to
      Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in
      Japanese economic News Wire, op cit) The mission of JFCCSGS is to
      implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with

      The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the
      Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of
      staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.

      CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not
      contemplate the deployment of ground troops.
      CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a
      small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war
      plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and
      takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to
      sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike
      plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat
      and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington
      Post, May 2005) The Role of Israel

      Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional
      and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran.
      This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely
      completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of
      several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some
      500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical
      nuclear bombs.

      The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113,
      can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster
      bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also
      http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

      Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines
      equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are
      now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas,

      Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28
      Buster Bunker Bombs:

      Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security
      Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an
      additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to
      Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to
      Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

      The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb
      Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B
      guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is
      described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command
      centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the
      GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used
      in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of
      civilian deaths through massive explosions.

      The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15

      (See text of DSCA news release at

      Extension of the War

      Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form
      of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb
      2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in
      Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a
      scenario of military escalation and all out war.

      At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq
      and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to
      unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

      Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in
      relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon,
      which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli
      forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military
      operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached
      between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

      More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the
      acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October,
      with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy
      satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
      The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for
      Russian launches in the coming months.

      Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to
      give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still
      be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space
      spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah's
      beard. What's more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion
      contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy
      guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports.
      This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)Ground War

      While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial
      bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground

      Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront
      coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces
      could enter into Lebanon and Syria.

      In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises
      as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey
      bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara
      Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the
      Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous
      areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.

      [According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement
      reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz,
      and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military
      manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as
      published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a
      few days earlier.

      Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to
      stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the
      manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain
      terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.

      The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not
      traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been
      scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special
      military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying
      out guerrilla warfare.

      Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the
      area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a
      time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of
      cooperating with America in espionage operations against its
      neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab
      press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness
      or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about
      its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.

      (E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring
      Services Translation) Concluding remarks

      The implications are overwhelming.

      The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality
      of a nuclear holocaust.

      Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.

      A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North
      America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons,
      without considering their devastating implications.

      This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the
      future of humanity.

      What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and
      internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which
      acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the
      forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels,
      which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take
      a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.

      Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions
      directed against the United States of America and Israel.

      Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best
      seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven
      languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa
      and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at
      www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the
      Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled:
      America's "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.,

      Related article: Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel

      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.

      To become a Member of Global Research

      The 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 to 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: crgeditor@...

      www.globalresearch.ca 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.

      To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at
      Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

      For media inquiries: crgeditor@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.