http://www.abbaswatchman.com/NEWS%20NAVAL%20BUILD%20UP.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/021006build-up.htm
Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya / Alarab Online | October 2 2006
The probability of another war in the Middle East is high. Only time
will tell if the horrors of further warfare is to fully materialize.
Even then, the shape of a war is still undecided in terms of its
outcome.
If war is to be waged or not against Iran and Syria, there is still the
undeniable build-up and development of measures that confirm a process
of military deployment and preparation for war.
The diplomatic forum also seems to be pointing to the possibility of
war. The decisions being made, the preparations being taken, and the
military maneuvers that are unfolding on the geo-strategic chessboard
are projecting a prognosis and forecast towards the direction of
mobilization for some form of conflict in the Middle East.
In this context, people do not always realize that a war is never
planned, executed or even anticipated in a matter of weeks. Military
operations take months and even years to prepare. A classical example
is Operation Overlord (popularly identified as =E2=80=9CD-Day=E2=80=9D), wh=
ich
resulted in the Battle of Normandy and the invasion of France.
Operation Overlord took place on June 6, 1944, but the preparations for
the military operation took eighteen months, =E2=80=9Cofficially,=E2=80=9D =
to set
the stage for the invasion of the French coast. It was during a meeting
in Casablanca, Morocco in January, 1943 that the U.S. President, F.D.
Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, outlined
a strategy to invade Normandy.1
The =E2=80=9CDowning Street memo2=E2=80=9D even confirms that the decision =
to go to
war with Iraq in 2003 was decided in 2002 by the United States and
Britain, and thus the preparations for war with Iraq were in reality
started in 2002, a year before the invasion of Iraq took place. The
preparations for the invasion of Iraq took at least a full year to
arrange.
The period from 1991 to 2003 has seen continuous military operations
against Iraq by the Anglo-American alliance. This period that has
lasted for over a decade saw stages of heavy bombardment and major air
strikes on a crippled Iraqi republic and its citizens. In reality, the
conditions for the groundwork and preparations of the invasion and
eventual occupation of Iraq took over ten years to materialize. Iraq
was weakened and its strength diluted within these ten years.
Even prior to this decade of Anglo-American bombardment and U.N.
sanctions, Iraq was caught in an eight years with Iran in the 1980s.
The war between Iran and Iraq was also fuelled and organized by the
United States to weaken both. In retrospect, the manipulation of a war
between Iran and Iraq to weaken both states seems to be strategic
planning in preparation for future military operations against them. In
this time preparations were also being made by securing the Balkans for
future Anglo-American operations. The Balkans is adjacent to the Middle
East and is also a geographic extension of the region. Preparations
were made by expanding NATO, shifting military bases eastward, and
securing energy routes. Dismantling the state of Yugoslavia was also a
part of this objective. Yugoslavia was the regional power of the
Balkans and Southeast Europe. This was done through close coordination
between the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. Now all eyes are on Iran
and Syria. Will there be another Anglo-American initiated war in the
Middle East?
Overview of Naval Confrontation against Iran
The Pentagon has already drawn up plans for U.S. sponsored attacks on
Iran and Syria..3 Despite the public posturing of diplomacy by the
United States and Britain, just like the Iraq Invasion, Iran and Syria
sense another Anglo-American war in the horizon. Both countries have
been strengthening their defenses for the eventuality of war with the
Anglo-American alliance.
A conflict against Iran and Syria, if it were to materialize, would be
unlike previous Anglo-American sponsored conflicts. It would be wider
in scope, deadlier, and have active aerial and water (naval) fronts.
Sea power would be of greater significance than in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. The United States would covet a quick
victory. The chances of this happening are unknown. If there were to be
a conflict with Iran, the United States and it partners would want to
keep the Straits of Hormuz open for the flow of international oil. The
Straits of Hormuz are the =E2=80=9Cenergy lifeline of the world.=E2=80=9D
The United States would without doubt quickly aim for the collapse of
the Iranian and Syrian commands and military structures.
It must be noted that the Iranian Armed Forces are characterized by
well structured military organization, with advanced military
capabilities, when compared to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Lebanon. Moreover, Iran has been preparing for a scenario of war with
the Anglo-American alliance for almost a decade. These preparations
were stepped up following the NATO-U.S. led attack on Yugoslavia
(1999).
The types of military units and weapons systems being deployed in the
Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by the United States are considered to be
best suited for combat against Iran, also with a view to keeping the
Straits of Hormuz open for oil tankers. This also includes forces that
would be able to secure bridgeheads on the Iranian coastline. These
U=2ES. forces consist of early warning units, recognizance, amphibious
elements, maritime search and rescue units, minesweepers, and rapid
deployment units.
U=2ES. Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?
The U.S.S. Enterprise, a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to the
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships and
vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer
Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated
objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear
powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct
naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The
deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led
=E2=80=9CWar on Terror=E2=80=9D under =E2=80=9COperation Enduring Freedom.=
=E2=80=9D
Originally the name for Operation Enduring Freedom was =E2=80=9COperation
Infinite Justice,=E2=80=9D which highlights the unlimited scope and
intentions of the War on Terror. =E2=80=9COperation Iraqi Freedom=E2=80=9D =
which
envelops the Anglo-American invasion and the continued occupation of
Iraq is also a component of these operations. A large number of U.S.
warships are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the
Arabian Sea.
While this deployment is said to be related to ongoing military
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the warships are carrying with them
equipment which is not intended for these two war theaters.
Minesweepers and mine-hunters have absolutely no use in landlocked
Afghanistan and are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor
and ports totally controlled by the Anglo-American alliance.
Other warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer
U=2ES.S. McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser
U=2ES.S. Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the
=E2=80=9Cfast combat support ship=E2=80=9D U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Su=
pply
will be a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the
Persian Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor
in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship
missile attacks.
The U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial
attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike Fighter
Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne Early
Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event of a war
with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings of danger
to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the helicopter
squadron specialized for combating submarines travelling with the
strike group. =E2=80=9CHelicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11=E2=80=9D will =
be on
board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to be the home
of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous submarine fleet in
the region.
The Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also
received orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led
by the U.S.S. Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a
cruiser, a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy
supply ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself
in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike
group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian
coast.
Another Strike Group Performs Anti-submarine Drills and sets sail for
the Persian Gulf
Another assault or strike group of U.S. warships, =E2=80=9CExpeditionary
Strike Group 5,=E2=80=9D are setting off to sea too. This strike group is
setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf in the
Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines and
Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American
occupied Iraq from San Diego.4 Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and
2,200 U.S. Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp
Pendleton will make the bulk of the force. The warships and the
servicemen they carry will reportedly have a tour of duty in the
Persian Gulf and =E2=80=9Cpossibly=E2=80=9D Anglo-American occupied Iraq fo=
r half a
year. They will also be joined by other ships including a Coast Guard
vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and
travelling to the Persian Gulf.
The Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in
Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is,
however, able to =E2=80=9Crapidly deploy=E2=80=9D on =E2=80=9Corder=E2=80=
=9D using large
landing craft stowed aboard the strike group=E2=80=99s warships. If ordered
this rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as
part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The
Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the
objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for an
invasion.
Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship
the U.S.S. Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5)
will also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a =E2=80=9Cdock landing vessel,=E2=
=80=9D
the naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the
U=2ES.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S.
Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard.
Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf, in
nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.
It is noteworthy to mention that the command and control structure of
the group will be separated from the vessels for maximum flexibility.
Also before the U.S. Naval strike group reaches the Persian Gulf it
will be performing =E2=80=9Canti-submarine drills and operations.=E2=80=9D =
The
anti-submarine exercises will take place off the coast of Hawaii, in
the Pacific Ocean. This can be training and preparation intended for
combating the Iranian submarine fleet in the Persian Gulf and Arabian
Sea. The warships will also be joined in Hawaii by Seattle-based U.S.
Coast Guard and by a Canadian navy frigate, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa.
Canada contributes to the American-led naval build-up in the Persian
Gulf
The conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is
actively collaborating in this military endeavor.
Canadian foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized
by two successive governments.
The government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the
=E2=80=9Cthree-dimensional policy=E2=80=9D of the =E2=80=9C3-Ds=E2=80=9D (=
=E2=80=9CDiplomacy=E2=80=9D,
=E2=80=9CDevelopment,=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CDefense".) adding a military co=
mponent to
Canadian foreign aid and development assistance.
The 3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led
operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest,
Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military
alliance.
Canada's involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the
press reports and official statements.
The H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving in
September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is
being deployed as part of Canada's contribution to fighting the =E2=80=9CWar
on Terrorism.=E2=80=9D The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known ship
to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a year.5 The
Canadian vessel is slated to be fully integrated into "Expeditionary
Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and
the Gulf of Oman, off the Iranian coast.
HMCS Ottawa
The Canadian Pacific Fleet vessel, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa, will be the
twentieth official Canadian naval deployment in support of the United
States and Britain in the War on Terrorism. About 225 personnel will be
on board the Canadian Navy ship, including a Sea King helicopter
detachment.6
While the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is supporting the American-led war on
terrorism, it is also to participate in anti-submarine exercises off
the coast of Hawaii
For what purpose are these exercises being conducted? How many
countries in the Middle East or Persian Gulf have submarines? Iran is
the only country in the Persian Gulf, which is not an ally of the U.S.,
which possesses an indigenous submarine fleet.
U=2ES. Coast Guard implicated in the Conflict with Iran
The U.S. Coast Guard is the fifth and smallest branch of the U.S. Armed
Forces. The other four branches of the U.S. military are the U.S.
Marines, Navy, Air Force, and the Army. The U.S. Coast Guard is unique
in that it is a force that is one-third military, one-third law
enforcement, and one-third a maritime search and rescue entity. In
peacetime, the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction and
mandate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but at the Defense
Department=E2=80=99s request, the Coast Guard can operate under military
missions at sea. In a time of war when the need is urgent, the U.S.
Coast Guard falls under the direct jurisdiction of the Pentagon as a
military force.
The U.S. Coast Guard is beginning to see more use and deployment with
the U.S. Navy. Coast Guards are being prepared for operations in the
Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Although this is not an unusual event by
itself, it can be significant in relationship to other events and
military movements unfolding and taking place. The U.S. Coast Guard
will be of great value in the event of a conflict with Iran. U.S. Coast
Guard can =E2=80=9Center ports that other warships can not.=E2=80=9D7 This =
would be
useful in securing bridgeheads of entry for an invasion force into
Iran. The U.S. Coast Guard is also specialized in maritime search and
rescue operations, unlike the U.S. Navy or the Marines. This is
significant since it is predicted by military analysts that there will
definitely be U.S. vessels that will be destroyed and heavily damaged
in the Persian Gulf by the Iranian Armed Forces in the event of a
conflict between the United States and Iran. U.S. Coast Guard will be
crucial in rescue operations, besides speedy operations, protecting
U=2ES. Navy ships, and the entry of ports or shores which other warships
can not enter.
=E2=80=9CWhat we bring to the strike group is the ability to conduct
intercepts and maritime security operations,=E2=80=9D and, =E2=80=9CThe too=
ls used
to fight crime and save lives at home [in the United States] are
valuable in the war zone [the Persian Gulf],=E2=80=9D elucidates Lee
Alexander the commander of the U.S.S. Midgett8
Media Reports of Planned Attacks on Iran and Syria
There have been several reports in the international media, which have
provided details regarding the military plans to attack Iran and Syria.
These include reports from Israeli sources on attacks intended for
Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Some of these media reports even quote
Members of the Israeli Knesset (MKs).9 The German and European media
have published various articles on possible NATO and Turkish
involvement in the planned U.S. air strikes on Iran. The Times (U.K.)
reported in March, 2006 that:
=E2=80=9CWhen Major-General Axel T=C3=BCttelmann, the head of NATO=E2=80=99=
s Airborne
Early Warning and Control Force, showed off an AWACs early warning
surveillance plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of
concern back at [NATO] headquarters in Brussels. It was not his
demonstration that raised eyebrows, but what he said about NATO=E2=80=99s
possible involvement in any future [Anglo-American] military strike
against Iran. =E2=80=98We would be the first to be called up if the NATO
council decided we should be,=E2=80=99 he said. NATO would prefer the
emphasis to remain on the =E2=80=98if=E2=80=99, but T=C3=BCttelmann=E2=80=
=99s comments
revealed that the military alliance [NATO] could play a supporting role
if America launches air strikes against Iranian nuclear targets
[including military facilities, industrial locations, and
infrastructure].=E2=80=9D10
United Press International (UPI) on December, 2005 reported that:
The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible
military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year
[2006], according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier
suggestions in the Turkish media.
The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence
sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the
United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing
the mullah-led regime [Iranian government] into line, including
military options. This "all options are open" line has been President
George W. Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.
But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is
that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to
prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying
the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year [2005]."
The German news agency DDP cited "Western security sources" to claim
that CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip
Erdogan to provide political and logistic support for air strikes
against Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara
and met Erdogan on Dec. 12 [2005], was also reported to have to have
asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help prepare
and monitor the operation.
(=E2=80=A6)
DDP cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been
assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes took
place, and had also been given "a green light" to mount their own
attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party), which
Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist attacks
inside Turkey.11
The =E2=80=9Cgreen light=E2=80=9D given by the United States for Turkish mi=
litary
incursions would in all likelihood also include Kurdistan, including at
some point Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria.
Time Magazine and the =E2=80=9CPrepare to Deploy Order=E2=80=9D of the Eise=
nhower
Strike Group
The latest U.S. reports provide details of preparations to go to war
with Iran and Syria. Time magazine confirms that orders have been given
for deployment of a submarine, a battleship, two minesweepers, and two
mine-hunters in the Persian Gulf by October 2006. There are very few
places in the world where minesweepers would be needed or used besides
the Persian Gulf. There also very few places where anti-submarine
drills are required , besides the Persian Gulf.
Anti-submarine drills are what Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (EST 5) is
performing in the Pacific before it heads to the Persian Gulf, together
with Canada's H.M.C.S. Ottawa and units of the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Time Magazine article intimates that the operation could result in
heavy American casualties.
=E2=80=9CThe first message was routine enough: a =E2=80=98Prepare to Deploy
Order=E2=80=99 sent through naval communications channels to a submarine, an
Aegis-class cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine-hunters. The orders
didn't actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready
to move by October 1 [2006]. A deployment of minesweepers to the east
coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed, but until
now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be
preparing for war with Iran.=E2=80=9D12
Award-winning investigative reporter and journalist Dave Lindorff has
written;
[Retired] Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the
National War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy]
carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October
21 [2006] is =E2=80=9Cvery important evidence=E2=80=9D of war planning. He =
says,
=E2=80=9CI know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to
deploy orders=E2=80=99 [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to =
go
as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October 2 to
October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region, that looks
about like the date=E2=80=9D of any possible military action against Iran. =
(A
PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and
planes should be ready to go, by a certain date=E2=80=94in this case,
reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, =E2=80=9CYou cannot issue a PTDO and
then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and
it=E2=80=99s not done as a training exercise.=E2=80=9D This point was also =
made in
the Time article.
(=E2=80=A6)
"I think the plan=E2=80=99s been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran,"
says [Colonel] Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against U.S. law
and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do
it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to
hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more
options than we [the United States] do.
(=E2=80=A6)
Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of
military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show
toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But
with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese
Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated
Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little
reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value
assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has
bluffing been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.13
The Pentagon responding quickly to the Time magazine report by saying
that the Chief of Naval Operations had merely asked the U.S. Navy to
=E2=80=9Cput =E2=80=98fresh eyes=E2=80=99 on old U.S. plans to blockade two=
Iranian oil
ports on the [Persian] Gulf.=E2=80=9D14 This response in itself is
questionable to analysts. Why would the United States want to stop the
flow of oil from Iran, a major petroleum exporting nation, which would
harm U.S. allies and the world economy?
Iranian Naval Force and Anti-ship Missiles
Iranian naval strength is divided into two main forces. One is the Navy
within the Iranian Regular Armed Forces and the other is the naval
branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Both forces have been
updating and improving their equipment over the years. The aim of both
naval forces is to act as a deterrent to the threat of invasion or
attack from the United States.
Iran has a submarine fleet of Iranian and Russian manufactured
submarines, a hovercraft fleet that was once the largest in the world,
ROVs (remotely operated vehicles), various surface vessels of different
sizes and operations, naval airborne units which include several
helicopter squadrons, minesweepers, and a large arsenal of anti-ship
missiles. The Iranian submarine fleet also includes mini-submarines
manufactured domestically in Iran.15
Iran has been going through a naval build-up in the last decade. For
example, in connection with the August 2006 Iranian war games and
exercises, the Iranian military displayed its latest =E2=80=9CPatrol Torpedo
(PT) boats.=E2=80=9D PT boats are small naval vessels that have been used
effectively to attack larger warships. These types of ships could be a
threat to the U.S. strike groups deploying in the Persian Gulf and
Arabian Sea. Naval Commander Kouchaki told Fars News Agency (FNA) that:
=E2=80=9CJoshan [a new Iranian PT boat] enjoys the world=E2=80=99s latest
technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and
electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities
required for launching powerful missiles.=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9CSimilar to Iran=
=E2=80=99s
first PT boat =E2=80=98Peykan=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98Joshan=E2=80=99 also has a=
speed of over 45
sea knots which makes it even faster than the same generation of PT
boats manufactured by other countries. The vessel is capable of using
various missiles and rockets with a range beyond 100 km [62.14 miles],
high maneuverability power that helps it to escape torpedoes, and
enjoys the most advanced sea shell of the world called =E2=80=98Fajr=E2=80=
=99.=E2=80=9D
The 76mm-caliber shell, which only Iran, the United States, and Italy
can manufacture, of the new Iranian PT boat also enjoys a wide variety
of military capabilities and can hit sea and air targets within the
range of 19 km or 23 thousand feet in distance, respectively.16
Iran has also tested a series of =E2=80=9Csubmarine-to-surface=E2=80=9D ant=
i-ship
missiles during its August 2006 war games17. The latter seem to have
raised some concern that Iran could disrupt the flow of oil through the
Persian Gulf in the event of an Anglo-American assault.18
In its April 2006 war games, Iran tested an anti-ship missile, reported
as =E2=80=9Cthe world=E2=80=99s fastest,=E2=80=9D with a top speed of appro=
ximately 362
kilometres per hour (km/h) or 225 miles per hour (m/h). The anti-ship
missile is designed to destroy large submarines and is said to be "too
fast for most vessels to escape" even if it is caught on their radar.19
Early warning systems will be essential for the U.S. in combating the
Iranian military.
If storm clouds should gather above the Persian Gulf, the United States
will have to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, international oil traffic
running, and simultaneously face a large barrage of Iranian missiles
from land, air, and sea. This includes deadly Iranian anti-ship
missiles that Iran has developed with the help of Russia and China.
There have been warnings by analysts that the Persian Gulf could be
closed off and turned into a shooting gallery by the Iranian Armed
Forces. Iranian weaponry is also reported to be invisible to radar and
can travel at high speeds. Amongst names mentioned in regards to
Iranian ant-ship missiles are the modified Russian and Chinese
=E2=80=9CSilkworms=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CSunburns,=E2=80=9D which are based=
on earlier Soviet
models.
The Iranian arsenal includes anti-ship missiles like the C-802 and
Kowsar. The C-802 anti-ship missiles are missiles that originate from
China. Kowsar anti-ship missiles are basically land-based anti-ship
missiles (land-to-sea missiles) which can dodge electronic jamming
systems.20
At this stage, it is impossible to say how the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast
Guard will perform against Iranian anti-ship missiles, in the context
of a =E2=80=9Creal combat situation.=E2=80=9D
Navy and Troop Movements in the Eastern Mediterranean
There is also considerable military movement and build-up of allied
forces in the eastern Mediterranean, formally under the disguise of a
peace-keeping operation pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution
1701.
Italy has redeployed Italian troops from Iraq, including commando units
and armored reconnaissance units, to Lebanon. Two marine units, one
belonging to the Italian Army and the other belonging to the Italian
Navy, have been sent to Lebanon. Both are veteran units of separate
tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. The Italian Army has
sent the =E2=80=9CLagunari=E2=80=9D of the Venice-based marine infantry uni=
t the
=E2=80=9CSerenissima Regiment,=E2=80=9D while the Italian Navy has sent the=
=E2=80=9CSan
Marco Regiment.=E2=80=9D
Spanish units and troops have been deployed near Tyre and the Israeli
border in South Lebanon. Spain, with two warships off the coast of
Lebanon is projected to have the third largest force from the E.U.,
after Italy and France.21 Large contingents of Spanish troops are
additionally based away from the Mediterranean coast, around
Jdeidet-Marjayoun (Marjayoun), near the Syrian border and both the
Sheba Farms and Golan Heights occupied by Israel.
German warships will also join the vessels of other fellow NATO members
in patrolling the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean. German will
eventually take over command of the naval forces from Italy. The German
government has launched battle frigates and fast patrol boats to
post-siege Lebanon.22
=E2=80=9CThe naval mission, the first German deployment to the Middle East
since the end of the Second World War, was backed by 442 lawmakers,
with 152 against and five abstentions. As many as 2,400 German [naval]
personnel will now be deployed to the region, backed by a one- year
mandate expiring August 31, 2007. The mission brings the number of
German soldiers [meaning servicemen] serving overseas to above 10,000
for the first time in postwar [meaning post-World War II] history.=E2=80=9D=
23
The coalition government of Denmark, formed by the Danish Conservative
People=E2=80=99s Party and the Liberal Party of Denmark, has been a steadfa=
st
supporter of Anglo-American military objectives. The Danish government
led by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Ramussen has sent Danish troops to
both Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.
Three Danish warships have also set sail for the Eastern Mediterranean
to join the NATO armada of warships gathering off the Lebanese and
Syrian coastlines. The Peter Tordenskiold, a naval corvette, and two
Danish missile cruisers, the Raven and the Hawk, have been on stand-by
for military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean since the end of
the Anglo-American sponsored siege of Lebanon. The Danish naval
attachment has been waiting in Wilhelmshaven, a German naval base, for
a =E2=80=9Cgo-ahead order=E2=80=9D for nearly two weeks in early September,=
2006.24
The Danish government is also talking about sending more troops to
Afghanistan, which would join the 2,000 troops to be dispatched by
Romania and Poland in early October, 2006.25
In Lebanon, France is involved in military operations on the ground,
whereas Italian and German warships head the naval mission in the
Eastern Mediterranean. Some 2,000 French troops are slated to be
deployed in Lebanon. French tanks and armored units have helped
comprise =E2=80=9Cthe most powerful Armor ever deployed by a United Nations
peacekeeping force=E2=80=9D in history.26
Greek warships are also part of the naval armada in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Ten Greek warships, which include diving units and navy
helicopters, have added their strength to the NATO naval force off
Lebanon with orders to =E2=80=9Cuse force if needed.=E2=80=9D The Greek nav=
al
commitment is coming at a reported cost of approximately 150,000 Euros
for every week of operation to the Greek government. The Greek warships
will dock in the southern port of Larnaca. Larnaca is on the southern
side of the island of Cyprus and faces Lebanon. This is until the naval
facilities of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, are deemed ready and safe
by the commanders of the naval armada.27
The Netherlands is deploying alternating warships, with a reported 150
Dutch sailors. The Dutch warships will be comprised of one frigate and
a supply ship offering logistics support to the naval fleet gathering
in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Dutch deployment should start
sometime in October 2006 and will continue sailing the Eastern
Mediterranean until August, 2007. The Dutch Defense Minister has also
said that the Dutch commitment could be extended by an additional extra
12 months.28
Belgium is also dispatching 400 troops to Southern Lebanon. The Belgian
Defense Minister has been one of several defense officials visiting
Lebanon to make preparations for military operations in Lebanon.29
Other defense officials in liaison with Lebanon have been dispatched by
Italy and France.
Turkish troops have not yet positioned themselves in Lebanon and face
strong domestic opposition. Turkey, an Israeli ally and NATO member, is
to send troops to Lebanon by the end of October 2006.30 This is
happening despite of the mass public outcry and opposition in Turkey to
the deployment of Turkish soldiers to Lebanon.
A former Turkish high ranking civilian representative of NATO in
Afghanistan, Hikmet Cetin in a televised address attempted to reassure
Turkish public opinion, emphasizing that Turkish troops would be going
to Afghanistan, rather than to
Lebanon:
"=2E..the number of Turkish soldiers [in Afghanistan] has more than
doubled from 300 to 700 over the last month [September, 2006]. Ankara
can increase the number of soldiers in the upcoming period for the
security of Kabul [Afghanistan], but it won=E2=80=99t send soldiers to
clashes [in South Lebanon].=E2=80=9D31
Bulgaria, another NATO member with troops in Afghanistan and (until
2005/2006) in Iraq, will be sending naval and ground forces to
Lebanon.32
In turn, Britain will be dispatching a small contingent of troops to
South Lebanon.33 The U.A.E., an Arab sheikdom, has been given a mandate
to clear the Israeli landmines and booby-traps left south of the Litani
River,34 an important source of water in the Levant that Israel has
always had its eyes on. The U.A.E. has contracted its de-mining
operations in South Lebanon to a British private security firm. The
British security firm, =E2=80=9CArmorGroup International,=E2=80=9D has rece=
ived a
5=2E6 million U.S. dollar (2.9 million pound sterling) contract for a
year of work in South Lebanon.35 ArmorGroup has also been providing
security for the United States military in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and
Afghanistan, including protecting U.S. Navy facilities in Bahrain. The
British security firm has additionally been providing security for oil
and gas consortiums in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Nigeria, and the
former Soviet Union, including Kazakhstan and the Republic of
Azarbaijan.36 As in the cases of Afghanistan and Anglo-American
occupied Iraq, private security firms are also starting to move into
Lebanon, along with NATO.
NATO has =E2=80=9Cunofficially=E2=80=9D moved in to fill the vacuum left by=
war in
Lebanon as it =E2=80=9Cofficially=E2=80=9D did in the case of Afghanistan. =
NATO
signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel in 2005. These NATO
troops could become an occupation force, as is the case in
Afghanistan..37
Israeli ground forces have not fully withdrawn from South Lebanon
pursuant to the U.N. Security Council resolution and ceasefire.
Meanwhile Israeli vessels have turned over the responsibility for the
enforcement of the illegal naval embargo on Lebanon to NATO naval
vessels and warships.
This naval embargo recalls the internationally illegal =E2=80=9CNo-fly
Zones=E2=80=9D established over Iraq by the United States, Britain, and
France, which contributed to weakening Iraq in the years prior to the
2003 Anglo-American invasion.
The crucial question is whether this naval embargo and militarization
of the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the preparations for future
military operation(s) directed against Syria. The illegal embargo has
U=2EN. approval. It is upheld as part of the "monitoring" of the Lebanese
coastline to enforce the entry of military supplies and weapons into
Lebanon.
Russia and China Send Troops to Lebanon, A Symmetrical Strategic Move
The Russian Federation and the People=E2=80=99s Republic of China have also
deployed troops in Lebanon. Is this for "peacekeeping" or are there
other objectives of strategic nature?
A Russian sapper (military field/combat engineer) battalion is also
being airlifted to Lebanon by the Russian Air Force.38 The Russian
Defense Minister has said that the Russian sappers and their battalion
will start work in Lebanon at the start of October 2006. All that is
formally needed is =E2=80=9Can agreement on the status of the combat engine=
er
battalion with the Lebanese government.=E2=80=9D39
Russian troops will be deployed near the city of Sidon (Saida) in South
Lebanon, off the shores of the Mediterranean. While Russian troops are
freshly entering Lebanon, there is also a Russian naval presence on the
Syrian seashore.40 (See Russian Base in Syria, a Symmetrical Strategic
Move, July, 2006)
Unlike their Russian allies, Chinese troops were present in Lebanon
before the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli attacks. The Chinese
presence in Lebanon was under the authority of a small U.N.
peacekeeping force. Around 200 Chinese military engineers already work
for the U.N. in South Lebanon clearing mines and unexploded ordnance.
The small U.N. force saw the death of one of its Chinese member at the
hands of Israeli attacks during the Anglo-American sponsored siege of
Lebanon. Approximately another 1,000 Chinese troops will be added to
the Chinese military presence in Lebanon. 41
Chinese and Russian forces will also be in close proximity to the Port
of Ceyhan and the energy route being opened in the Eastern
Mediterranean. This is a symmetrical action if one considers the U.S.
military presence and support for Taiwan as a means to control the
strategic oil route to China and Japan from the Middle East.42
Russia and China are the two largest members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO). they are permanent members of the U.N.
Security Council, decisively opposed to the Anglo-American initiatives
in the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and Sudan.
Additionally, Russia and China together with Iran are challenging
Anglo-American oil interests in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea Basin.
Israel is an extension of the Anglo-American alliance and also NATO
through a military pact with Turkey and the =E2=80=9CNATO-Mediterranean
Dialogue,=E2=80=9D including the June 29, 2004 Istanbul Cooperation
Initiative.43 With the build-up and marshalling of troops from member
states of NATO, Russia and China could be sending troops in a
deliberate symmetrical move to Lebanon to establish a military
equilibrium in the important balance-of-power of the Levant and Eastern
Mediterranean.
The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil: the Baku-Tbilisi -Cehyan Oil
Terminal
There is undeniable international competition for energy resources in
the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal (also called the
Caspian-Mediterranean Oil Terminal) has an outlet on the Turkish coast
of the Eastern Mediterranean in close proximity to Syria and Lebanon.
The opening of this pipeline is geo-strategically an important victory.
This is a geo-strategic victory for the Anglo-American alliance,
Israel, the large oil corporations, and their partners, but it is a
geo-strategic set back for Russia, China, and Iran on the other hand.
It seems that the sovereignty of Lebanon has been put into further
danger with the opening of the strategic oil terminal.
The occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) has been followed
by the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, 44 The July 2006
Israeli siege of Lebanon is intimately related to the opening of the
Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal, the marshalling of naval
vessels in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea, and an anticipated war against
Iran and Syria.
Syria is also taking steps to strengthen its military. Russia is
helping Syria build and upgrade its air defense systems. The Syrian
military has additionally made numerous orders for Russian and Iranian
manufactured warplanes and missiles. Belarus and China are also aiding
the Syrian military.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky has given details on the Israeli war on
Lebanon, the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the
internationally rivalry for energy resources;
Is there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the
inauguration of the world's largest strategic pipeline, which will
channel more than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?
Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku (BTC)
oil pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean,
took place on the 13th of July [2006], at the very outset of the
Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.
(=E2=80=A6)
The bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated
military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran has
already been contemplated by U.S. and Israeli military planners. This
broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic oil and oil
pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants, which control the
pipeline corridors. In the context of the war on Lebanon, it seeks
Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean coastline.
(The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 26, 2006)
Syria and Lebanon must be subjugated if the United States and its
partners are to secure the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to expand
the oil terminal from Ceyhan, Turkey to Israel, lock out Russia and
China from securing international energy resources, and ultimately
creating a monopoly over world energy resources.
The Eastern Mediterranean, a =E2=80=9CSecond Front=E2=80=9D guarded by NATO?
There has been a significant build-up of military force, including
naval power, in Lebanon and the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean.
This force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several NATO
countries including Italy, Spain, France, Turkey, Germany, and the
Netherlands.
NATO's =E2=80=9COperation Active Endeavor,=E2=80=9D implemented in the wake=
of 9/11
is fully integrated into the U.S. sponsored =E2=80=9CWar on Terrorism=E2=80=
=9D. The
Operation is overseen by the Commander of =E2=80=9CNATO Allied Naval Forces,
Southern Europe=E2=80=9D based in Naples.
In this context, a NATO naval task force of warships has been
monitoring the Eastern Mediterranean since late 2001, years before the
Israeli aerial siege of Lebanon (2006). This task force of NATO
warships has been =E2=80=9Ctrained and prepared for a prolonged operation in
the Eastern Mediterranean since 2001.=E2=80=9D45
According to one Israeli source, the NATO military presence in the
Eastern Mediterranean is part of the war plans pertaining to Syria and
Iran:
=E2=80=9CThis expectation [of a war launched against Iran and Syria] has
brought together the greatest sea and air armada Europe [NATO] has ever
assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers with
75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks; 15
warships of various types =E2=80=93 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek., 3-5
German, and 5 American; thousands of Marines =E2=80=93 French, Italian and
German, as well as 1,800 U.S. Marines. It is improbably billed as
support for a mere [expected] 7,000 European soldiers who are deployed
in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000 soldiers
and some 15-16,000 Hezbollah militiamen from coming to blows as well as
for humanitarian odd jobs. (=E2=80=A6) So, if not for Lebanon, what is this
fine array of naval power really there for? First, according to our
military sources [in Israel], the European participants feel the need
of a strong naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to prevent a
possible Iranian-U.S.-Israeli war igniting an Iranian long-range Shahab
missile attack on [American-NATO bases used against Iran from eastern]
Europe; second, as a deterrent to dissuade Syria and Hezbollah from
opening a second front against America and Israel from their Eastern
Mediterranean coasts.=E2=80=9D 46
In the case of a war with Syria and Iran, NATO forces in the Eastern
Mediterranean would no doubt play a decisive role. The Eastern
Mediterranean would become one of several fronts, which could include
Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.
NATO "Enlargement" and the Caucasus
Just as it did in Afghanistan, NATO has moved into Lebanon. Under a
formal peacekeeping mandate, NATO has become a de facto occupation
force that is party to the Anglo-American agenda.
There are two other factors that fall into the NATO equation. The first
is the militarization of Georgia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, two
former republics of the Soviet Union which are firmly aligned with
NATO. Georgia occupies a strategic position with regard to the control
and protection of the oil pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea
Basin. It also constitutes a wedge between Russia, Armenia, and Iran.
Azerbaijan is primarily an oil in the Caspian Sea basin at the outset
of the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan pipeline.
It is Georgia which is being propped up militarily to counter Russia,
Iran, and their ally Armenia.
A strategic triangle is formed by Afghanistan in the east, the Caucasus
in the north, and the Levant in the west, with Iraq and Iran somewhat
in its center.
Georgia is essential to gaining control of this area from the north.
The Caucasus region is also an interlinked front with the Middle East
and Central Asia that will become more active as the Anglo-American
military roadmap proceeds.
It seems that rising tensions between Russia and Georgia are part of
this process. The civil unrest and conflicts in the Caucasus are
intimately related to the struggle to secure Middle Eastern and Central
Asian energy resources.
The Balkans, the heart of Central Asia, and Sudan are another strategic
triangle of the Anglo-American military roadmap. The reconfiguration of
Yugoslavia and the entrance of states such as Bulgaria, Albania,
Montenegro, and Macedonia into the NATO sphere are also essential steps
in the Anglo-American roadmap.
Russia has been outraged at the harboring of Chechen rebels in Georgia
and the Georgian government=E2=80=99s collaboration with the United States =
in
undermining Russian influence in the Caucasus. Russia has fought back
and tried to counter Georgian and Anglo-American influence in the
Caucasus by supporting the Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence
movements. Additionally, border delimitation has become an issue
between Georgia and Russia. This has resulted in an uneasy stalemate,
but the situation seems to be changing. Russian troops have also been
leaving their bases in Georgia47 and tensions have been rising between
the Russians on the one hand and Georgia and NATO on the other.
September 2006 has seen relations on the brink of collapse. The
Georgian government has charged the Russian military with spying in
Georgia and the Russian Federation of trying to oust the Georgian
government and install a pro-Russian, anti-NATO government in its
place. In addition, South Ossetian forces have shot down a helicopter
with the Georgian Defense Minister on board and, days later, Georgian
authorities foiled what they claim was an attempt at a =E2=80=9Ccoup
d=E2=80=99etat=E2=80=9D supported by Russia, which is something that the Ru=
ssian
government denies.48
There is also a striking parallel between "peacekeeping operations" in
Georgia and Lebanon. Both are bogus operations with a hidden agenda. In
Georgia it is Russian troops that are deployed as peacekeepers and in
Lebanon peacekeeping is =E2=80=9Cunofficially=E2=80=9D dominated by NATO. T=
he
Georgian Foreign Minister has said: =E2=80=9CIf we continue to drive the
situation [in Georgia] ... with existing actors and with the dominant
power of Russia ...we will end up in violence [war],=E2=80=9D He has demand=
ed
that Russian troops stationed in Georgia withdraw and has accused
Moscow of seeking to undermine the Georgian government.49
The second factor is the rapid expansionist policy of NATO.
NATO has been expanding eastward. It is now seeking entry for Georgia,
the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and several other countries.50 The
Russian Foreign Minister has told the Secretary-General of NATO that
the "Reconfiguration of NATO military forces in Europe, as well as the
desire of the United States to deploy certain elements of missile
launching sites in Eastern Europe are the issues of concern for us [the
Russian Federation].=E2=80=9D51
In this regard, the Associated Press points to rising tensions between
the Russian Federation and NATO, pertaining to Georgia's membership in
NATO
Moscow [the Russian government] denounced the move [to embrace Georgia
further into NATO] as a Cold War throwback that hurt Russian interests
and could further destabilize the Caucasus region. Russian Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov threatened to send two divisions of Russian
troops to the border with Georgia to ensure that =E2=80=9CRussia=E2=80=99s =
security
won=E2=80=99t be hurt if Georgia enters NATO.=E2=80=9D
The strained relations between Russia and Georgia worsened Thursday
when Moscow recalled its ambassador, announced the recall of diplomats
and complained to the United Nations about Georgia's detention of five
Russian officers on spying charges. Mr. Ivanov called Georgia a
=E2=80=9Cbandit state.=E2=80=9D
Georgia charged four of the officers on Friday with spying and was to
put them on trial later in the day, said Shota Khizanishvili, spokesman
for the Interior Minister. A fifth officer was released Friday
(September, 2006).52
Formation of a Eurasian Military Alliance?
Since August 2006, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
and Kyrgyztan have holding joint military exercises and anti-terrorism
drills. These operations were conducted under the SCO and/or the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (with the involvement of
the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS). These military exercises
were conducted at a time when Iran was also involved in major war
games.
-Russia and Belarus held joint military exercises in 2006 (June
17-25)53
-U.S. military operations and war games were held with Bulgaria and
Romania, in the Balkans (July-August, 2006)54
-Iranian War Games started on August 19, 200655
-Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-terrorism
exercises including Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were
held in late August 200656
-China and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills also in late
August (start August 23/24, 2006)57
-Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills
(September 19-23, 2006)58
-China and Tajikistan hold their first joint military exercise
(September 22-23, 2006)59
-CIS and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-Terrorism
Drills in Armenia (September 26-28, 2006)60
The initiation of a =E2=80=9CEurasian Energy Club=E2=80=9D was the practical
outcome on September 15, 2006 for the SCO during a conference held in
Dushanbe, Tajikistan.61 This is a goal that cannot be achieved unless
Iran is a full member of the SCO.
IRNA quoted the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Azimov, as saying
that =E2=80=9Cthe economic projects, on which [SCO] agreements were reached
during the International Shanghai Conference [SCO], cannot be
implemented without the cooperation of Iran, as a significant regional
country.=E2=80=9D62
Mongolia is also set to become a full member of the SCO. Mongolia,
Iran, India, and Pakistan are all observer members of the SCO. Armenia,
a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO) and the
CIS, and Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, are potential candidates
for the SCO. Armenia has also made it clear that it has no intention of
joining the E.U. or NATO.63 Belarus has also expressed interest in
joining the SCO as a full member state.64
The expansion of the SCO and the complete inclusion of Iran as a full
member has been challenged by the Helsinki Commission (the Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe) during an inquiry (September 26,
2006) into the impact of the SCO on Anglo-American objectives and U.S.
influence in Central Asia.
The expansion of the SCO was said to be unlikely because the
=E2=80=9Ceconomic mission of the SCO seems ill-defined=E2=80=9D and that the
organization is not likely to add new members who may end up competing
with Russia and China for control of Central Asia. It was also pointed
out during the Helsinki Commission hearing that, =E2=80=9CThey [the members
of the SCO] are bound together by a shared set of security interests
and a shared set of perceived risk[s].=E2=80=9D
=E2=80=9CSecurity interests and perceived risks=E2=80=9D being connotations=
for the
growing threat of Anglo-American intrusion into the former Soviet
republics of Central Asia
The war games held in the former Soviet Union and Central Asia65 were
dominated by Russia and China. They were conducted under the disguise
of fighting =E2=80=9Cterrorism, extremism, and separatism.=E2=80=9D Terrori=
sm,
extremism, and separatism are critical arenas of cooperation for all
member states.66 What is the hidden agenda? Are these war games related
in any way to U.S. war preparations?
Terrorism, extremism, and separatism are nurtured by Anglo-American
covert intelligence operations including sabotage and terrorist attacks
by Special Forces. Inciting ethnic, ideological, and sectarian tension
and separatist movements have been a traditional hallmark of
Anglo-American strategy in the Middle East, the Balkans, India,
Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union and Africa.
As for the manipulation and creation of extremism, Afghanistan is
testimony of this strategy. Afghanistan is where the Pakistani ISI and
the United States helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union.
The United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have also worked in
supporting extremist movements in the former Soviet Union. This is one
of the reasons that the Iranian government has remained silent in
aiding or acknowledging religious based ideologues or separatist
movements in the Caucasus and the former Soviet Union, including
Chechnya.
Kurdistan: The Seeds of Balkanization and "Finlandization?"
Both the United States and Israel have been covertly training a number
of Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq. Iran and Syria have accused Israel
of establishing a military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israel has also
trained Anglo-American special forces in assassination missions and the
formation of =E2=80=9Chunter-killer teams=E2=80=9Din Iraq.67
Magdi Abdelhadi, an Arab and Middle Eastern affairs analyst has
written:
"Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began over three years ago
[in 2003], Arab journalists have been speaking of Israelis operating
inside the autonomous region of Kurdistan [in Northern Iraq].
They said this was evidence that toppling that Saddam Hussein was only
the first chapter in a wider American-Israeli conspiracy to eliminate
threats to their strategic interests and re-draw the map of the Middle
East [vis-=C3=A0-vis a military roadmap].
Syria and Iran, which have common borders with Kurdish areas, are
believed to be the primary targets."68
There are deliberate attempts to manufacture or create civil strife and
division within the countries of the Middle East. The underlying
objectives are balkanization (division) and "finlandization"
(pacification).69
Kurdistan is the geographic heart of the contemporary Middle East and
the Gordian knot holding all its mosaic of states and people together.
Kurdistan is also strategically the land-bridge connecting Syria and
the Eastern Mediterranean with Iran. The Kurdish people have been
continuously manipulated and deceived by the United States. The
deliberate manipulation of the Kurdish people by the United States and
Israel could deal a severe and chaotic blow to the stability of
Kurdistan and the national unity of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and by
extension the neighbors of these countries.
Moreover, the balkanization of Iraq could set in motion a
domino-effect, which could have an impact in the entire Middle East and
beyond. The United States has created the conditions for social
division within Iraq. Dividing Iraqi society weakens the resistance
movement to the Anglo-American military occupation. Creating sectarian
and ethnic divisions in Iraqi society has a direct bearing on U.S. war
plans pertaining to Iran and Syria. The premise is that Iraqis would be
too busy fighting each other to offer significant support to Syria and
Iran.
The balkanization of Iraq is also consistent with Anglo-American
objectives for the =E2=80=9CEurasian Corridor=E2=80=9D and the =E2=80=9CYin=
on Plan70=E2=80=9D
for the Greater Middle East.
Both objectives overlap and depend on a partnership between the United
States, Britain, and Israel. These objectives rely on initial regime
change(s) from within a targeted state through the triggering of ethnic
and sectarian conflicts. This strategy is also being used against
Russia, China, and Central Asia. The ultimate objective is the creation
of a new set of Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like mini-states or
Anglo-American protectorates in the Middle East and the former Soviet
Union that can easily be controlled by the U.S., Britain, and Israel.
In an interview with Der Spiegel, the Syrian President said that the
Middle East was teetering on the brink of chaos and conflict. When
asked about the partition or balkanization of Anglo-American occupied
Iraq, the Syrian President said:
=E2=80=9CIt would be harmful, not just for Iraq, but for the entire region,
extending from Syria to the [Persian] Gulf and into Central Asia.
Imagine snapping a necklace and all the pearls fall to the ground.
Almost all these countries have natural dividing lines, and when ethnic
and religious partition occurs in one country, it=E2=80=99ll soon happen
elsewhere. It would be like the end of the Soviet Union=E2=80=94only far
worse. Major wars, minor wars, no one will be capable of keeping the
consequences under control.=E2=80=9D71
The problem can further be compounded. A war with Syria could spill
over and ignite further conflicts in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon,
while also affecting Turkey, Cyprus, and the entire Arab World.
A war with Iran or any balkanization affecting Iran would also
contribute to destabilizing the Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia
which all have ethnic and cultural ties with Iran. This includes North
Ossetia-Alania, Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, which are part of the
South Federal District of the Russian Federation.
A war with Iran could spill over into the ethnically diverse Caucasus
with serious and unpredictable ramifications for Russia.
The Caucasus is intimately interlinked with Iran. The conflicts between
Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region, the internal conflicts in Georgia over South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and the fighting in Chechnya and Dagestan could all light up
again. These conflicts would not only threaten Russia's national
security, they would also affect the SCO, which is integrated with
China, Russia and several former Soviet republics as well as the CSTO..
Connect-the-Dots: All the Pieces Coming Together?
There is an evident military build-up of conventional, ground, air,
naval, and nuclear forces in and around the Middle East and Central
Asia. It includes the mobilization of British troops on the Iranian
border72, and the extension of military tours of service in
Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.73 The 1st
Brigade of 1st Armored Division, a 4,000 man unit which is operating in
the Al-Anbar province of Iraq, bordering Syria, has had their tour of
duty extended. They are not the first group of American or British
soldiers to have their tours of duty extended in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in Iraq.74 They were scheduled to
be in Iraq for a maximum of 12 months, but their tours have been
extended repeatedly like other military units. The U.S. Army has also
extended the tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Striker Brigade, an army
unit with over 3,500 troops, several times.75
Many of the Arab dictatorships will also secretly support the
Anglo-American alliance. They will watch as Syria and Iran are attacked
and Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are further devastated by
conflict. The pro-U.S. governments - are supportive of the U.S.
=E2=80=9Cmilitary roadmap=E2=80=9D, despite the fact that the people in the=
se
countries are firmly opposed to the U.S. led war. The hopes of a
Palestinian state have also been abandoned by their leaders.
They have demonstrated this in their involvement against Iraq before
and after the 2003 Anglo-American invasion. They have tacitly accepted
the oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the Israeli
invasion and bombing of Lebanon (phrased in Lebanon as the =E2=80=9CArab
conspiracy against Lebanon=E2=80=9D). There have been media reports that
Saudi Arabia and Israel have also been conducting secret talks in
regards to Iran and the broader Middle East.76
Romania and Bulgaria are already important hubs for Anglo-American
military operations in Eurasia extending from the Balkans to the Middle
East and Central Asia. Both states are also important partners of the
Anglo-American alliance. According to Lawrence Korb in a 2003 article
in The New York Times:
The Pentagon is smitten with Romania. And Poland. And Bulgaria too. The
Defense Department is considering closing many, if not all, of its
bases in Western Europe=E2=80=94which are primarily in Germany=E2=80=94and =
to shift
its troops to Spartan new sites in the former Soviet bloc. Already we
[the public] are told that the First Armored Division, now on the
ground in Iraq, will not return to the bases in Germany it left in
April [2003]. And Gen. James Jones, the head of the European Command
[of the United States], said this month that all 26 Army and Air Force
installation in Germany, except for the Air Force base at Ramstein,
might be closed. In effect this could mean transferring five army
brigades, some 25, 000 troops, to the East [meaning Eastern Europe;
Bulgaria and Romania].
(The Pentagon=E2=80=99s Eastern Obsession, NYT, July 30, 2003)
In retrospect the Pentagon=E2=80=99s decision to move eastward was
strategically correct and based on the premise of the eastward shift of
Anglo-American military operations. The situation in the former
Yugoslavia and the Balkans was placated in the second half of the
1990s. With the start of 2001 the time had come to advance operations
further eastward.
NATO has also been in liaison with Washington, London and Tel Aviv.
Anglo-American and Israeli interests have been served by NATO. NATO
either formally or informally has been sending troops to assist in the
=E2=80=9Coccupational phase=E2=80=9D of all Anglo-American operations after=
the
=E2=80=9Cblitzkriegs=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cinitial military phases.=E2=80=9D=
NATO and member
states have been acting as occupation forces in Afghanistan and Iraq
and are also moving into Lebanon. The Secretary-General of NATO has
promised that the NATO mission in Afghanistan will expand and
intensify.77
NATO spokesmen in Afghanistan have reported that by February 2007
General McNeil of the U.S. Army will take over command of NATO forces
in Afghanistan, called the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF), and American troops in Afghanistan. This means that American
troops and NATO troops, which have been under separate command
structures, will now be joined under one command structure in
Afghanistan.78 The media has pointed to the fact that U.S. troops would
be under NATO command. But what is really at stake is that a U.S.
General is now overseeing NATO forces.
Roughly 12,000 mostly American troops in Afghanistan will begin to
integrate with NATO in October 2006.79 The top NATO commander in
Afghanistan is currently headed by Lieutenant -General David Richards
of Britain. In the case of a conflict with Iran, NATO troops in
Afghanistan would attack Iran. Similalry, NATO troops stationed in
Lebanon would attack Syria.
The Pakistani Connection
There are also signs that NATO and the United States are expecting the
collapse of General Musharraf and the Pakistani government because of
the chaos that would be triggered in Pakistan from attacks on Iran and
Syria.80 This could explain the request that India send troops into
Afghanistan.81 NATO and Indian interests would converge in ensuring
that Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal not fall into the hands of
radicals or extremists that could threaten Anglo-American interests and
the security of India.
There is no arms ban on Syria for importing defensive systems, but a
merchant ship coming from Asia and Egypt has been detained in Limassol,
Cyprus carrying air defense systems headed for Syria. The ship is free
to leave, but the fate of its cargo is still undecided.82 Syria=E2=80=99s
president and government have also said they expect to be attacked by
Israel in the context of a broader Middle East war.83
In an NBC interview with Brian Williams, the Iranian President said
that the White House and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East are
=E2=80=9Cmoving the world toward war.=E2=80=9D This is a significant assert=
ion
coming from a leader of a Middle Eastern state and such a statement
must be taken very seriously. The Iranian President, made a similar
statement in his September address to the U.N. General Assembly,
pointing to the fact that the United States was dragging the world
towards a major war.
Iranian leaders have announced that British and American diplomacy
efforts are merely bravado for the general public. They point to the
=E2=80=9Cillusion of trying to solve crisis through diplomacy=E2=80=9D. In =
the
cases of both Iraq and Afghanistan. the United States and Britain
decided to go to long before they informed the public of their
intentions. In the case of Iraq there exist de-classified documentation
that prove this to be true and in the case of Afghanistan there was no
possible logistical way of preparing for an invasion without months of
planning prior to the declaration of war, which took place on the 12th
of September 2001
Iran is fully aware of the U.S. threat to bomb and invade. Its
population is fully aware of the possibility of Anglo-American air
raids. Iran has cautioned the United States and Britain. In August
2006, Iranian war games in coordination with Russian, Chinese, and CSTO
war games took place throughout Iran, including all of Iran=E2=80=99s
geo-strategically important border provinces with Pakistan,
Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Turkey, and Iraq. Clear signals were
being sent to the Anglo-American alliance.
Venezuela, an Iranian ally, has warned the United States repeatedly
that it will not watch Iran and Syria being invaded or attacked. The
President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, has alluded to U.S. military
preparations for the invasion of Iran in his speech to the 61st U.N.
General Assembly:
=E2=80=9CAnd now [the United States is] threatening Venezuela=E2=80=94new t=
hreats
against Venezuela, against Iran [too]?=E2=80=9D84
The Venezuelan President also stated: "Meantime, the incumbent U.S.
administration is also dreaming [incorrectly planning] of invading Iran
and Venezuela to take control of the oil resources of these two
countries as well [as those of Iraq].=E2=80=9D85
How Venezuela plans to aid Iran and Syria in a war against the United
States is a topic of debate, but it is very likely that, in the case of
war, Venezuelan diplomatic relations with the U.S. government and oil
supplies to the United States will be cut off.
Link between the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean?
There is as process of ongoing militarization in the Levant and the
Eastern Mediterranean, essentially led by NATO forces, under the
pretext of U.N. peacekeeping.
If the U.S. led war were to proceed, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil
Terminal, as well as the pipeline route leading to Ceyhan, would be an
obvious military target of Syrian-Iranian forces. Meanwhile, the
Iranian Navy would attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz. This could
deliver a halting grind to the flow of world oil supplies as Iran has
repeatedly promised. Venezuela could also stop the flow of its oil as
its government has repeatedly warned.
=C3=9Dncirlik Air Base is a major NATO base in Turkey, next to the Syrian
border and coastline. It must be noted that American nuclear weapons
have also been positioned in Turkey's =C3=9Dncirlik Air Base. The latter
was one of the main hubs for the United States and NATO during the 2001
Afghanistan military campaign. This Turkish base is still of vital
importance to the United States, Britain, and NATO. Thousands of
American and British airmen are stationed there. It is also adjacent to
the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal will become even more
significant and important if Iran should successfully close off the
Straits of Hormuz.
This is one of the reasons why the =C3=9Dncirlik Air Base is strategically
important. The =C3=9Dncirlik Air Base would be used to protect the Port of
Ceyhan, the outlet of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal. The
NATO armada in the eastern Mediterranean as well as Israel would also
play an important role in protecting the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil
Terminal if Syria or Iran attempted to disrupt the flow of energy to
the Eastern Mediterranean.
There are two distinct naval armadas: in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea
and in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coastlines of Syria and
Lebanon.
These armadas are being built-up concurrently. The Eastern
Mediterranean build-up is essentially characterized by Israeli and NATO
naval and ground forces. In the Persian Gulf, the naval armada is
largely American with the participation of the British, Australia, and
Canada. In this extensive land mass between the Eastern Mediterranean
and the Persian Gulf, various military movements on the ground are
occurring, including Northern Iraq and Georgia.
The broader war theater would extend far beyond, northwards to the
Caspian Sea Basin and eastwards to Pakistan and China's Western
frontier. What we are dealing with is a chessboard for another Middle
Eastern war, which could potentially engulf a much broader region.
* Global Research Contributing Editor Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is an
independent writer and analyst of the Middle East, based in Ottawa.
Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader
Middle East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D
.
|
