Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
May 1, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President ***** Cheney dropped
a bombshell. He 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 US military
involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"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," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose"
to attack Iran. 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 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."
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging
Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military
operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for
more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas
Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and
intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran (
Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally,
without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not
implement an attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in
covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British
intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli
counterparts) are involved in this operation.
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran
would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use
different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite
scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear
facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in
favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).
Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will
unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of
social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that
Iranians will consistently rally behind a wartime government against
foreign aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would
rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
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 the Persian
Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military
escalation and all out war.
In other words, 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 an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh
the far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for
a possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart
air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs.
The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to
address the full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception
of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful]
BLU-113 bunker buster ":
"Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this
increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or
without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )
Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr
using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would
be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and
communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force
AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver
tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the
"conventional" BLU 113. It 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=3Djf03norris ) .
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for
civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See
Miochel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )
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,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war,
but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it
could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the
borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network,
Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air
strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably
extend to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the
level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a
an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of
former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get
into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in
Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National
Journal, 4 December 2004).
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran
has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear
sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes
difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20
April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach
targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted
high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack.
Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by
the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian
SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa
Center for Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the
next stage of "the road map to war".
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the
interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street
financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70%
of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of
the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11
%) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less
than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for
Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part
of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US
Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to
invade both Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's
National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United
States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of
Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests,
to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual
containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region
without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy
is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement,
as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest
in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.
(USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy
, emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran
and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other
countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central
Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely
involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey
occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive
military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that
NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO
agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has
already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled
for June.
(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that
the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and
Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an
attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to
launch the attack has not been made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should
nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample
evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in
recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons
systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various
parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government
officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel
has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the
international level with a view to securing areas of military
cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation
directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in
Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a
threat to peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which
are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the
military pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF
delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six
members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan,
Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to
revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program,
which would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to
participate in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together
with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the
Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which
have been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November
2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with
NATO, which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik
Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli
and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of
Syrian troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya'alon and
appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in
Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff
(See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is
considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the
right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial
operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz
is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's
appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief
of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military for such
a scenario."
March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up
talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the
joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military
cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to
"enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies
threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying
NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies
who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be
the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO.
Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the
possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO
will strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO.
Given Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic
proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against
them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. "
(Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies,
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates
NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act
of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also
involved in the process of military consultations relating to the
planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the
bilateral military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and
the likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched
from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial
authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on
Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop
Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military
exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to
participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli
military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to
events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in
implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March
2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic
endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling
Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military
operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for
deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border.
US military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated
to play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with
the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in
several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and
Azerbaijan. The stated short term objective is to "neutralize Iran".
The longer term objective under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to
exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea basin,
with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and pipeline
corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of
establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure
US influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task
forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in
emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and
pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States
($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US European
Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian region.
Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be located in
Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President
Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which
occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern
frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military
cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan,
and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with
Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush
at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More
significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high
level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to
Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official
visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft
missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry.
Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely
visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding
its planned aerial attack on Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of
Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough
enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment
of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest
that Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior
to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
(See VOA, http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In
February 2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans
Blix challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to
the UN Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
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
aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was
accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior
Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks:
joint defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II
Theater Missile Defense and Popeye II missiles. The latter also
known as the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for
deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish
a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to
a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel
and the US.
Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan,
Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see
Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of
NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation
agreements with NATO.
Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003 (Click Map to enlarge)
In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive scenario in
which a number of countries, including several former Soviet republics,
could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a Russian
based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country,
Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out
approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries...
Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit
to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security
Russia, 12 April 2005).
Concluding remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which
is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear
facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military
roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's
participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war
throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the
Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the
proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See
text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot
be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear
weapons have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional
bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in
conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the
explosion is underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear
threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the
existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan,
Iraq and Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian
sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and
Georgia, where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement
inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched
military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war
theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and
could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East
region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently,
involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure
of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a
broader conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and
Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea
basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes
on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major
divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European
partners as well as within the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance,
would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO
largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO
and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against
Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on
Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran
were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US
military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin,
eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian
Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase
of this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not
in itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the
military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold
an illegal war agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national
and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the
military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in
unseating those who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is
galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their
safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a
humanitarian mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be
stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be
targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the
financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an
integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in
the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and
the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the
"war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public
opinion in support of a global war agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated
delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's
5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in
the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by
the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over
10,000 nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power,
and should be publicly recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of
200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little
doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated,
largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the
Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear
bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while minimizing
blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to kill
people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic
missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the
Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons
of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of
all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than
any conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let
alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region,
often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action
strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction
directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would have several
salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary destabilizing
dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling the region's
states to each seek their own "deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the
U=2ES. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for
developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting
and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear
strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in
increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and
negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel
would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional
peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community
confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that
there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a
fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
From John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
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:
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.
For media inquiries:
=A9 Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca, 2005
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D%20CH20050501&=
articleId=3D66
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
Privacy Policy
=A9 Copyright 2005 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia =A9 Copyright 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D%20CH20=
050501&articleId=3D66
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran |
27 Aug 2006 02:37:03 PM |
|
|
lkgeo1 wrote:
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
May 1, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President ***** Cheney dropped
a bombshell. He 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 US military
involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"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," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose"
to attack Iran. 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 Ariel Sharon
to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:
SNIPT
For media inquiries:
=A9 Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, GlobalResearch.ca, 2005
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=3DviewArticle&code=3D%20CH2005050=
1&articleId=3D66
Talk about DUMBING Down or walking into a "Trap of mega proportions"
are they sure they can pull it off?
Answer NO.Israel does not have the real estate to withstand a nuclerar
response, and the Seppos have not won a War since the second one and
that was fought for the most part by Russia, fact is Seppos cannot
fight, one on one, they are cowards, they rely on massive firepower,
and those ME folk have their measure.
Let sleeping dogs lie, or else ypou weill get bitten by wolves!
Then again the lesson is not learned until the Boeing has gone through
the building.
Let us see how you cop a nuke in Yellowstone, and then you find out how
close to a messiah you are!
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
