The text below is Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky book entitled: The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015. To order the book directly from Global Research click here
This chapter provides a historical perspective of US war plans
directed against Iran, including the use of a preemptive nuclear attack,
using low yield, “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons. Emphasis
added
*** While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction
resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is
impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a
Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until
it occurs and becomes a reality. 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 holocaust.”
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed
against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and
invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S.
in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration
identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on
Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S.
“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.1
“Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT)
Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near
Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when
modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed
for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2 The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:
The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near
Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a
simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners
conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed
the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an
attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will
ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations”
against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in
draft form.
… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been
examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran,
including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and
deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime
change.3
Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated:
The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all
prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training
for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S.
Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT
(Theatre Iran Near Term).4
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice
President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM)
to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation
directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the
government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran
there are more than four hundred fifty 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.5
The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader
process of military planning and sequencing of military operations.
Already under the Clinton administration, U.S. Central Command
(U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq
and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic
objective:
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. U.S.CENTCOM’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.6
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military
operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark,
the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries:
[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of
seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran,
Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations”
against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command
(U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an
uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner,
namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an
impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel
would require a “green light” from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger
mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as
retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.
In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush
administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an
initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led
military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although
led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been
presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It
would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World
opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to
“defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military
cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to
“defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s
second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no
uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the
“rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be
doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without
us putting pressure on them “to do it”8
According to Cheney:
One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do
it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy
that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might
well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about
cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,9
Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some
apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on
America’s behalf and “do it” for us:
Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is
certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president
today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of
freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language
which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the
Israelis to do it.10
What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel
military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active
planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush
and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military
and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside
Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be
planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led
coalition.
An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated
U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air
defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that
of the U.S. and NATO.11
Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S.
technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the
U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes
satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea,
and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system:
This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis
and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to
operate.13
The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which
is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel
cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent.
Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the
U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution
1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran:
The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert
and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means
necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve
got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to
quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14
In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to
the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a
rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a
convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to
wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war,
in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering
of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to
understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to
spark off a major military operation against Iran.
Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly
speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both
Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely
crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu
government to attack Iran. Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (USTRATCOM)
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and
build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead
Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide
efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is
that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including
the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle
East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I).
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran.
In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had
achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around
the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was
made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led
nuclear attack against a fictional country.16 Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons
formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving
the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance
with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons
program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use
nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran.
Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with
tactical nuclear weapons:
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes
may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended
enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of
concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be
used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United
States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18
Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and
North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine,
which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the
conventional war theater. Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support
of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an
instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic
terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The
low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated
to be used against Iran and Syria 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,
Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing 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.19
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical
nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with
nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity
between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.
The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or
Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the
conventional bunker buster bomb.20
While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic
thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely
composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a
war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range
between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach. Radioactive Fallout
The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually
dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating,
potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including
Israel) and Central Asian region.
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means
to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s
nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas
those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the
surrounding civilian population.” “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran
Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal
is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all
bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was
categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with
the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was
tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war
theater. According to U.S. military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff
had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003
that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were
unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).
The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it
intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB
is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities
such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the
MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian
casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type
mushroom cloud.
The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the
hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount
includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of
the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly
linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was
contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the
following instructions:
“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for
the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat
environments. The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to
meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further
states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has
responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has
responsibility over Iran).23
The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of
Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined
use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs,
including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance
Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive
capacity.
The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the
underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan
bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more
than twenty feet base to nose”.24
These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden
objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to
casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass
destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear
and despair. State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”
The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is
supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the
revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances
in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an
attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of
weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched
against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced
weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new
weapons systems will be tested.
The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document
entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S.
military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged
simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively
win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I)
This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a
single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the
transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military
affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new
technologies”. 25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a
state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of
sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing
paradigms.
Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of
transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition,
then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come
when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service,
perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as
numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very
wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes,
aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current
paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26
The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new
space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an
enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including
more than half a million ground forces. Electromagnetic Weapons
Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s
communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and
destabilize command and control, government infrastructure,
transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons,
environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare)
developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons
systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force
document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of
weather modification technologies:
Weather modification will become a part of domestic and
international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have
offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence
purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on
earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through
ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the
production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of
technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded
capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and
power.28
Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might
also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological
weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the
PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’
specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool.”30 Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles
Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and
long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf
States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use
of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or
in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.
In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by
precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior
American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date
missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to
possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range
brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32
According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic
missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was
unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an
impression.”33
The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and
Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war
on Iran.
Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it
is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile
attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s
air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military
facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and
Iraq could also be targeted by Iran. Iran’s Ground Forces
While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the
Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is
important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of
personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces
serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are
already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces
be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance
movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.
Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000
are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are
reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in
the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in
five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds
Force (Special Forces).”
According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force
controlled by the Revolutionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000
active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total
of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words,
Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several
million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside
Iraq. U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran
For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills
and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and
long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state
of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few
kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of
Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within
proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab
Emirates.
It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the
U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO
allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S.
and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial
losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground
in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009
crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by
allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil
field.
Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s
military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive
aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs
and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could
eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military
planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.
An operation of this nature would result in significant military and
civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.
Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.
In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into
a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central
Asian region.
In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the
Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future
of humanity.
Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that
war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply
that these war plans will be carried out.
The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant
capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been
crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack
on Iran.
Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances.
Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and
China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly
weakened.
The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia
are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military
action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli
attack.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on
your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated.
2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006.
3. Ibid.
4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007.
5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005.
6.
U.S.CENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy,
link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9.
7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I.
8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005.
9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005.
10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski.
11. Michel
Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the
U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research,
January 11, 2009.
12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009.
13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009.
14. Webster
Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen
Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds
On, Global Research, August 10, 2010.
15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006.
16. David
Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command
Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2,
2005.
17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010.
18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007.
19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004.
20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5,
2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris.
21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009.
22. Ibid.
23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here.
24. See
Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use
Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September
21, 2009.
25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf.
26. Ibid, emphasis added.
27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004.
28. Air
Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1.
29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004.
30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60.
31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006.
32. Debka, November 5, 2006.
33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006.
34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia.
The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and
covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in
the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and
the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater
operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing
sovereign states.
Dr. Drew predicts major epidemic in filthy Los Angeles this summer
The filthy conditions of Democrat-run U.S. cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are so alarming that even the New York Times is acknowledging that fact.
On May 22, 2019, the New York Times published an op/ed, “America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals,”
by the paper’s opinion columnist Farhad Manjoo, calling “progressives”
hypocrites for abandoning “progressive values in their own backyards”.
(H/t FOTM reader Big Lug)
Manjoo writes:
The basic problem is the steady collapse of livability. Across my home state, traffic and transportation is a developing-world nightmare.
Child care and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest.
The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all
superlatives — what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a
dystopian showcase of American inequality….
Hundreds of filthy homeless encampments where people live in piles of garbage.
Streets even in downtown L.A. littered with piles of rotting garbage
uncollected in weeks, even months, infested with rats and
disease-carrier fleas.
Orkin pest control ranks L.A. as the second most rat-infested city
in the U.S. (Atlanta, Georgia is the first), but the L.A. city
government has no program, like that in New York city and Washington,
DC, to control the ever-growing rat population.
Last fall, fleas infected with typhus were found on rescue dogs in L.A. animal shelters.
The Calcutta-like conditions of Los Angeles prompted famous TV addiction medicine specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky to predict a major infectious disease epidemic this summer, putting at risk thousands of lives.
On Thursday, May 23, on Fox News Radio’s Brian Kilmeade Show, Dr. Pinsky said:
I live in the great state of California, the utopia that
is California, which is a nightmare. I want to give you a prediction
here. There will be a major infectious disease epidemic this summer in
Los Angeles.
We have tens and tens of thousands of people living in tents.
Horrible conditions. Sanitation. Rats have taken over the city. We’re
the only city in the country, Los Angeles, without a rodent control
program. We have multiple rodent-borne, flea-borne illnesses, plague,
typhus. We’re gonna have louse-borne illness. If measles breaks into
that population, we have tuberculosis exploding. Literally, our
politicians are like Nero. It’s worse than Nero.
It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen in my life. I feel like I’m on a
train track waving at the train and the train is going to go off the
bridge. The bridge is out.
Here’s what I want to do, I want to take away qualified immunity from
the politicians so we can go after them for reckless negligence.
The text below is Chapter III of Michel Chossudovsky book entitled: The Globalization of War. America’s Long War against Humanity, Global Research Publishers, Montreal, 2015. To order the book directly from Global Research click here
This chapter provides a historical perspective of US war plans
directed against Iran, including the use of a preemptive nuclear attack,
using low yield, “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons. Emphasis
added
*** While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction
resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is
impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a
Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until
it occurs and becomes a reality. 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 holocaust.”
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed
against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and
invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the U.S.
in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration
identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”.
U.S. military sources intimated at the time that an aerial attack on
Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the U.S.
“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.1
“Theater Iran Near Term” (TIRANNT)
Code named by U.S. military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near
Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when
modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed
for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.”2 The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:
The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near
Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a
simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners
conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed
the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an
attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will
ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations”
against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in
draft form.
… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been
examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran,
including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and
deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime
change.3
Different “theater scenarios” for an all-out attack on Iran had been contemplated:
The U.S. army, navy, air force and marines have all
prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training
for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of U.S.
Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT
(Theatre Iran Near Term).4
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice
President Dick Cheney instructed U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM)
to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation
directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the
government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran
employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran
there are more than four hundred fifty 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.5
The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader
process of military planning and sequencing of military operations.
Already under the Clinton administration, U.S. Central Command
(U.S.CENTCOM) had formulated “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq
and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic
objective:
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. U.S.CENTCOM’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.6
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military
operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark,
the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries:
[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of
seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran,
Somalia and Sudan.6 (For further details, see Chapter I)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations”
against Iran formulated in 2006 by U.S. Strategic Command
(U.S.STRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an
uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner,
namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an
impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel
would require a “green light” from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger
mechanism” which would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well as
retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.
In this regard, there are indications going back to the Bush
administration that Washington had indeed contemplated the option of an
initial (U.S. backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright U.S.-led
military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although
led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would have been
presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It
would then have been used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World
opinion, a military intervention of the U.S. and NATO with a view to
“defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military
cooperation agreements, both the U.S. and NATO would be “obligated” to
“defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s
second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney had hinted, in no
uncertain terms, that Iran was “right at the top of the list” of the
“rogue enemies” of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, “be
doing the bombing for us”, without U.S. military involvement and without
us putting pressure on them “to do it”8
According to Cheney:
One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do
it without being asked. …Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy
that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might
well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about
cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,9
Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some
apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on
America’s behalf and “do it” for us:
Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is
certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president
today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of
freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language
which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the
Israelis to do it.10
What we are dealing with is a process of joint U.S.-NATO-Israel
military planning. An operation to bomb Iran has been in the active
planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush
and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military
and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside
Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be
planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the U.S. led
coalition.
An attack by Israel against Iran would also require coordinated
U.S.-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air
defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that
of the U.S. and NATO.11
Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S.
technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the
U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes
satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea,
and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.”12
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The U.S. rather than Israel controls the air defense system:
This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis
and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to
operate.13
The U.S. military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which
is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel
cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent.
Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the
U.S. Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution
1553, which explicitly supported an Israeli attack on Iran:
The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert
and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means
necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve
got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to
quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area”.14
In practice, the proposed legislation serves as a “Green Light” to
the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a
rubber stamp to a U.S. sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a
convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to
wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war,
in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering
of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to
understand is that a minor “incident” could be used as a pretext to
spark off a major military operation against Iran.
Known to U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the U.S.A) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly
speaking, Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both
Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely
crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu
government to attack Iran. Global Warfare: The Role of U.S. Strategic Command (USTRATCOM)
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and
build-up directed against Iran, U.S.STRATCOM was identified as “the lead
Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide
efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.”15 What this means is
that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including
the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle
East Central Asian region would be coordinated by U.S.STRATCOM. (See Chapter I).
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the U.S. and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran.
In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (U.S.STRATCOM) announced it had
achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around
the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was
made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a U.S. led
nuclear attack against a fictional country.16 Continuity in Relation to the Bush-Cheney Era President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons
formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed “that it is reserving
the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance
with U.S. demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons
program.17 The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use
nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran.
Israel has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with
tactical nuclear weapons:
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes
may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended
enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of
concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be
used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United
States declined to intervene, senior sources said.18
Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and
North Korea are consistent with post-9/11 U.S. nuclear weapons doctrine,
which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the
conventional war theater. Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support
of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an
instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic
terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The
low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated
to be used against Iran and Syria 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,
Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing 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.19
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical
nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with
nuclear warheads (for example, B61-11), with an explosive capacity
between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.
The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional” BLU 113. or
Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the
conventional bunker buster bomb.20
While the U.S. does not contemplate the use of strategic
thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely
composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a
war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho III missile system with a range
between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach. Radioactive Fallout
The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually
dismissed by U.S.-NATO military analysts, would be devastating,
potentially affecting a large area of the broader Middle East (including
Israel) and Central Asian region.
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means
to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”. Iran’s
nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas
those of the U.S. and Israel are instruments of peace “harmless to the
surrounding civilian population.” “The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran
MOAB DROPPED IN AFGHANISTAN
Of military significance within the U.S. conventional weapons arsenal
is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all
bombs” The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was
categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with
the the largest yield in the U.S. conventional arsenal. The MOAB was
tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war
theater. According to U.S. military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff
had advised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003
that the “mother of all bombs” was to be used against Iraq. (There were
unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).
The U.S. Department of Defense already confirmed in 2009 that it
intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB
is said to be ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities
such as Natanz or Qom in Iran”21. The truth of the matter is that the
MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in significant civilian
casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type
mushroom cloud.
The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the
hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount
includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of
the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers. This procurement is directly
linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was
contained in a ninety-three-page “reprograming memo” which included the
following instructions:
“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for
the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat
environments. The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to
meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further
states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has
responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has
responsibility over Iran).23
The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of
Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined
use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs,
including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance
Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive
capacity.
The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the
underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan
bomb–longer than eleven persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder or more
than twenty feet base to nose”.24
These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden
objective of the MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to
casually describe the MOAB (“Mother of all Bombs”), is “mass
destruction” and mass civilian casualties with a view to instilling fear
and despair. State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”
The process of U.S. military decision making in relation to Iran is
supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the
revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances
in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an
attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of
weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched
against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced
weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new
weapons systems will be tested.
The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC) document
entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the U.S.
military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged
simultaneously in different regions of the World: “Fight and decisively
win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”. (See Chapter I)
This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a
single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the
transformation of U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military
affairs”, namely the implementation of “war made possible through new
technologies”. 25 The latter consists in developing and perfecting a
state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of
sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing
paradigms.
Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of
transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition,
then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come
when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service,
perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as
numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very
wary of making large investments in new programs –tanks, planes,
aircraft carriers, for example– that would commit U.S. forces to current
paradigms of warfare for many decades to come.26
The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial break-point, with new
space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an
enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including
more than half a million ground forces. Electromagnetic Weapons
Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s
communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and
destabilize command and control, government infrastructure,
transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family of weapons,
environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare)
developed under the HAARP program could also be applied.27 These weapons
systems are fully operational. In this context, the U.S. Air Force
document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledged the military applications of
weather modification technologies:
Weather modification will become a part of domestic and
international security and could be done unilaterally. … It could have
offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence
purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on
earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through
ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the
production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of
technologies which can provide substantial increase in U.S., or degraded
capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and
power.28
Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might
also be envisaged in the war theater.29 In turn, new uses of biological
weapons by the U.S. military might also be envisaged as suggested by the
PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’
specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of
terror to a politically useful tool.”30 Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long-range Missiles
Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and
long-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf
States. Hence the emphasis by the U.S.-NATO Israel alliance on the use
of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pre-emptively or
in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.
In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles two were marked by
precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior
American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date
missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to
possess.”31 Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range
brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach”.32
According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic
missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was
unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression – and it made an
impression.”33
The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the U.S. and
Israel, did not in any way modify U.S.-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage war
on Iran.
Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it
is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile
attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s
air defense system is therefore crucial. U.S. and allied military
facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and
Iraq could also be targeted by Iran. Iran’s Ground Forces
While Iran is encircled by U.S. and allied military bases, the
Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. What is
important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of
personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to U.S. and NATO forces
serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted with a well-organized insurgency, coalition forces are
already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces
be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance
movement to U.S. and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.
Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000
are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are
reservists.34 There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in
the Air Force. According to the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in
five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds
Force (Special Forces).”
According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force
controlled by the Revolutionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000
active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total
of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be”35, In other words,
Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several
million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside
Iraq. U.S. Military and Allied Facilities Surrounding Iran
For several years now, Iran has been conducting its own war drills
and exercises. While its Air Force has weaknesses, its intermediate and
long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state
of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few
kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of
Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within
proximity of U.S. and allied military facilities in the United Arab
Emirates.
It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the
U.S. has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO
allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the U.S.
and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial
losses to coalition forces in a conventional war theater, on the ground
in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009
crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by
allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil
field.
Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s
military facilities, its communications systems etc., through massive
aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs
and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could
eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which U.S. military
planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.
An operation of this nature would result in significant military and
civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.
Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.
In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into
a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle-East – Central
Asian region.
In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the
Pentagon’s drawing board for more than ten years, threatens the future
of humanity.
Our focus in this chapter has been on war preparations. The fact that
war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply
that these war plans will be carried out.
The U.S.-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant
capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been
crucial in the decision by the U.S. and its allies to postpone an attack
on Iran.
Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances.
Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and
China and a number of former Soviet Republics has been significantly
weakened.
The ongoing U.S. military threats directed against China and Russia
are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military
action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a U.S. NATO Israeli
attack.
*
Note to readers: please click the share
buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on
your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Notes
1. See Target Iran – Air Strikes, Globalsecurity.org, undated.
2. William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006.
3. Ibid.
4. New Statesman, February 19, 2007.
5. Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005.
6.
U.S.CENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#U.S.Policy,
link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9.
7. General Wesley Clark, for further details see Chapter I.
8. See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned U.S.-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005.
9. Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005.
10. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski.
11. Michel
Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the
U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research,
January 11, 2009.
12. Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009.
13. Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009.
14. Webster
Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen
Threatens Iran; U.S.-Israel versus Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds
On, Global Research, August 10, 2010.
15. Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006.
16. David
Ruppe, Pre-emptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command
Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2,
2005.
17. U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010.
18. Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007.
19. Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds, Defense News, November 29, 2004.
20. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Tactical Nuclear Weapons” against Afghanistan?, Global Research, December 5,
2001. See also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris.
21. Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009.
22. Ibid.
23. ABC News, op cit, emphasis added. To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here.
24. See
Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use
Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September
21, 2009.
25. See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding America’s Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf.
26. Ibid, emphasis added.
27. See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004.
28. Air
Force 2025 Final Report, See also U.S. Air Force: Weather as a Force
Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1.
29. See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004.
30. Project for a New American Century, op cit., p. 60.
31. See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006.
32. Debka, November 5, 2006.
33. www.cnsnews.com November 3, 2006.
34. See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia.
The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and
covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in
the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and
the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater
operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing
sovereign states.
