Salem-News.com

If Iran is attacked, a large percentage of Americans will have nothing to do with it.

(SALEM, Ore.) – Want to see the end of the world as we know it? If you do, you are in luck, because your chance to see the future of your kids and grandkids go up in smoke is nearing, and if the republicans and Israelis’ have anything to say about it, the grand final act will be here before you know it.

What will cause this? Israel. Why? Because the leaders of Israel’s current political ambitions represent the dark forces of nature, that’s why. Illegal occupation, stealing of land, demeaning an entire population of indigenous people and murder, plenty of murder… that is why.

Whose fault will it be if it happens? The United States, Great Britain and Canada primarily, followed by several less significant nations which either abstained from entering the right vote, or voted in the UN not to investigate Israel for war crimes in both Gaza and Lebanon.

Israel was created by an act of deception. British, Russian and American forces defeated the Third Reich so people could return to their homes and live in peace.

Unfortunately, many Jewish people moved to Israel, and that is where the problems that choke the Middle East every day since, began.

People like Helen Thomas, who lived then, remember this. The idea that one of the most esteemed news professionals in the nation could be taken down over simply talking about it, creates the current picture. The Palestinians have paid the price for Hitler’s dirty deeds for over sixty years now.

The treatment Israel reserves for native Palestinians is something that Americans would never dole out, except by proxy. Murder, the attempt to wipe a whole culture off the map, ethnic and religious discrimination at epic levels; this is the reality of Israel. The consensus seems to be that anything Israel does is OK, even if it flies in the face of common human decency.

I predict that the issue will divide the United States into two permanent camps. It is interesting that the side that would root for Israel, are the neocons; American right wing Christians, so often associated with hypocrisy, warmongering, using false information to start wars, etc.

Israel and the US hold the keys to the world’s future. This matter is not in the hands of Iran. Their leaders have stated over and over that they do not have the desire or need to create nuclear weapons, and most of us believe they would be entitled to do so anyway. Israel has them, illegally, so what is the big deal?

If someone wanted to convince me that we have failed as a human race I would be an easy sell. As much as I want to see a bright future exist for my children, I have my doubts about their chances of actually seeing it.

Greed, greed, greed! That is the motivation of capitalists, and the Israelis represent the first religion willing to charge interest in financing, which the Bible clearly states should not take place. The Muslims held out, have always assisted each other without charging interest. I respect that very much. I guess maybe that explains why so many Muslim people are not in banking.

If the United States backs an attack on Iran, a large percentage of Americans will have nothing to do with it.

Protests and riots will begin and never stop. The US military will splinter and fall into factions. The US economy will collapse, more Americans will be sent to die in a needless war.

Terrorism, the kind Bush lied and preached about with his dire warnings that never came to pass, will become a daily reality. Ask people in other parts of the world what it is like to live that way. Ask the Iraqi people, they know a great deal about it, thanks to the United States’ death machine.

Attacking Iran, a nation with no history of aggression toward others, over the Israeli propaganda and lies, will be the final act. What a sick world and society we have. What a twisted and sad thing religion is.

This song by the Flobots says it all, please check it out if you haven’t watched it:

View the original article at Salem News

Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
Part I: Global Warfare

The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. US military sources intimated that an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US “shock and awe” bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

“American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )

“Theater Iran Near Term”

Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, “Theater Iran Near Term”, simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 “when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran.” ( (William Arkin,Washington Post, 16 April 2006).

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a “Shock and Awe” Blitzkrieg:

“The analysis, called TIRANNT, for “Theater Iran Near Term,” was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for “major combat operations” against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.

… Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.” (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

Different “theater scenarios” for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplated:  “The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for “Operation Iranian Freedom”. Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).” (New Statesman, February 19, 2007)

In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT,  Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a “contingency plan” of a large scale military operation directed against Iran “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States” on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:

“The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.” (Philip Giraldi, Deep Background,The American Conservative August 2005)

The Military Road Map: “First Iraq, then Iran”

The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated  “in war theater plans” to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic objective:

“The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President’s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman’s National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command’s theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. 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, link no longer active, archived athttp://tinyurl.com/37gafu9)

The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations.  According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon’s military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.”  In “Winning Modern Wars” (page 130) General Clark states the following:

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

The Role of Israel

There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.

Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have a separate and distinct military agenda.

Israel is integrated into the “war plan for major combat operations” against Iran formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of large scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a “green light” from Washington.

An attack by Israel could, however, be used as “the trigger mechanism” which would unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel  rather than an outright US-led military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack –although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO– would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a view to “defending Israel”, rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be “obligated” to “defend Israel” against Iran and Syria.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush’s second term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney 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” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:

“One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked… Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,” (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)

Commenting the Vice President’s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America’s behalf and “do it” for us:

“Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it’s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it.”

What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel  military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.

An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, particularly with regard to Israel’s air defense system, which since January 2009 is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky,  Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)

Israel’s X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support has “integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors.” (Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)

What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather than Israel controls the air defense system: ”This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,’ Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. ‘So this is not something we are giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.’” (Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

The US military oversees Israel’s Air Defense system, which is integrated into the Pentagon’s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran without Washington’s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called “Green Light” legislation in the Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:

“The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of military force.” … “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area.”’ (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010)

In practice, the proposed legislation is a “Green Light” to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.

In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial is that a minor ”incident” could be used to spark off a major military operation against Iran.

Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.

Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the regional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command  in Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map below)  as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean.  Military planning and decision making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as “partner nations” is integrated into a global military design including the weaponization of space.

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

USSTRATCOM’s responsibilities include: “leading, planning, & executing strategic deterrence operations” at a global level, “synchronizing global missile defense plans and operations”, “synchronizing regional combat plans”, etc. USSTRATCOM is the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.

In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as “the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction.” (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006).

What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.

Map: US Central Command’s Area of Jurisdiction

Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran

Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe, Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)

Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era:  President Obama has largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed  “that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran” for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat – IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel  has also drawn up its own “secret plans” to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:

“Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.”(Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran – Times Online, January 7, 2007)

Obama’s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of “authoritative” nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating “Islamic terrorism” and instating Western style “democracy” in Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for “battlefield use”. They are slated to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America’s “war on Terrorism” alongside conventional weapons.

“Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them more effective as a deterrent.” (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the “nuclear version” of the “conventional”  BLU 113. or Guided Bomb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel’s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel’s Jericho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.

Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27

B61 bunker buster bomb

Radiactive Fallout

The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed  by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of  the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing “collateral damage”.  Iran’s nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas those of the US  and Israel are instruments of peace” harmless to the surrounding civilian population“.

“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran

Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound “monster weapon” nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” TheGBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized “as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed” with the the largest yield in the US conventional arsenal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater. According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff  had advised the government of  Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the “mother of all bombs” was contemplated to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to use the “Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be  ”ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran” (Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). The truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in extremely large civilian casualties. It is a conventional “killing machine” with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.

The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount  includes the costs of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page “reprogramming memo” which included the following instructions:

“The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP [Mother of All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].” It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).” (ABC News,  op cit, emphasis added). To consult the reprogramming request (pdf) click here

The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran’s infrastructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive capacity.

The MOP is described as “a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 persons standing shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to nose” (See Edwin Black, “Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs”, Cutting Edge, September 21 2009)

“Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB)

GBU-57A/B Mass Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)

MOAB: screen shots of test: explosion and mushroom cloud

State of the Art Weaponry: “War Made Possible Through New Technologies”

The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.

The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large scale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:

“Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars”.

This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of  U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”, namely the implementation of  “war made possible through new technologies”. (See Project for a New American Century, Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf).  The latter consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.

“Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for many decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-based weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.

Electromagnetic Weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran’s communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc.  Within the same family of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare) developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Owning the Weather” for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 2004). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, te US Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledgedthe military applications of weather modification technologies:

“Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.” (Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning… | (Ch 1) at www.fas.org).

Electromagnetic radiation enabling “remote health impairment” might also be envisaged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the US military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: “[A]dvanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” (PNAC, op cit., p. 60).

Iran’s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles

Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used either pr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.

Range of Iran’s Shahab Missiles. Copyright Washington Post

In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka),  “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran’s “Power of Deterrence” Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowledged that “the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach” (Debka, November 5, 2006)

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s anti-ballistic missile program, “the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented… It was meant to make an impression — and it made an impression.” (www.cnsnews.com 3 November 2006)

The 2006 exercises, while  creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did not in any way modify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.

Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel’s air defense system is therefore crucial. US and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.

Iran’s Ground Forces

While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance movement to US and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Republic of Iran Army – Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran’s Navy and 52,000 in the air force. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, “the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces).” According to the CISS, Iran’s Basij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards “has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be” (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran – Wikipedia), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq.

US Military and Allied Facilties Surrounding Iran

For several years now Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. Their intermediate and long-range missiles are fully operational. Iran’s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of US and allied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.

It is worth noting that in response to Iran’s military build-up, the US has been transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

While Iran’s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in  a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the East Maysan oil field.

Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran’s military facilities, its communications systems, etc. through massive aerial bombing, using cruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is something which US military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simulated war scenarios.

An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.

The expanded budget for the war in Afghanistan currently debated in the US Congress is also intended to be used in the eventuality of an attack on Iran.

Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.

In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World War III scenario, extending beyond the Middle East Central Asian region.

In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for more than five years, threatens the future of humanity.

Our focus in this essay has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans will be carried out.

The US-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial over the last five years in the decision by the US and its allies to postpone an attack on Iran.

Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet republics has been significantly weakened.

The ongoing US military threats directed  against China and Russia are intended to weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran’s allies in the case of a US NATO Israeli attack.

What are the countervailing forces which might prevent this war from occurring? There are numerous ongoing forces at work within the US State apparatus, the US Congress, the Pentagon and NATO.

The central force in preventing a war from occurring ultimately comes from the base of society, requiring forceful antiwar action by hundred of millions of people across the land, nationally and internationally.

People must mobilize not only against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be also be challenged.

This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.


Author’s note: Dear Global Research Readers, kindly forward this text far and wide to friends and family, on internet forums, within the workplace, in your neighborhood, nationally and internationally, with a view to reversing the tide of war.  Spread the Word!

View the original article at Global Research

“ONLY FOOLS BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE TOLD….Anthony Lawson”

Video narrated by Anthony Lawson with Gilad Atzmon

Foreword by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor Veterans Today

We hear daily, even hourly, of the need to attack Iran to protect the United States.  Some Americans believe the threat is real.  If they believe this, they are wrong.

There is no threat, only a vendetta against Iran, a country, as the video tells us, that has never attacked another nation.  The point of this foreword isn’t to make a case, the video does that with simplicity.  It sticks to the facts.  When faced with being pushed into a war, one well beyond our “illegal war” with Iraq, not my words but those of the British government, our primary ally in that, well, what do we call it?  Attack?  Fiasco?  Blitzkrieg?  Perhaps “con job” is closer to the truth.

The American people, despite constant conditioning by the press, an unprecedented propaganda campaign, are not ready for war with Iran.  Powerful and evil forces want this war.  Evil forces.  Doesn’t this sound a bit like the rhetoric we have become so accustomed to?  “Evildoers” and “evil empires.”  Yet history will be very clear on this.  When it tells of the “evildoers and evil empire” it is very likely to speak of the United States of America.  When it talks about war criminals, we only hope it sticks to the real evildoers, the politicians and their paymasters, America’s “puppet government” and not the brave and decent men and women who gave so much of themselves in a cause that now stands proven as wrong.

Few Americans can say they believe they haven’t been lied to continually by their government, their leaders, journalists, the generals, even constant manipulation inserted into well over half the shows on television.  Pre-staging for war has been systematically written into thousands of television episodes, NCIS, Bones everything but, surprisingly, Seinfeld and Burn Notice.  Still, it hasn’t been enough.

If war is wanted, certainly not needed, certainly not moral and most certainly the worst imaginable thing for the United States, an act that will cut 70% of the world’s oil production overnight and collapse, without question, the dollar, the pound and the euro….

There is no reason to attack Iran except to destroy one country only.  That country is the United States, teetering on the brink of financial collapse since 2007.

Someone, some “special country” is trying to push America over that brink.  It will take a terrorist act of unimaginable proportions to push America to war and Americans, in the post 9/11 era, can imagine alot.  How often are you hearing about nuclear weapons and dirty bombs?  When the Israeli news service, DEBKA, told us, last week, that America faced this kind of attack, it was only one piece of a mosaic real journalists have had in front of them for two years.

The video:

View the original article at Veterans Today

Yesterday was the the 60th anniversary of the nuclear attack on Hiroshima. This was an attack by the Americans on Japan that was the first instance of a nuclear bomb being used in wartime and it was a war crime that caused the instant death of 140,000 innocent civillians and then another 100,000 or so died later from radiation related illnesses.

Some people claim that the nuclear bombings caused the war to end a lot quicker than it would have had there been an invasion of Japan, and there is no doubt that a lot of US soldiers lives were spared at the cost of innocent Japanese because the war ended without such an invasion.

However there is no question that this was a horrific war crime that targeted innocent women, children and old people who had done nothing wrong apart from being born in the wrong country. If an attack like that was carried out today it would surely be classified as a crime against humanity and we should class past acts by the standards of today instead of legitimising deeds carried out in wartime through the mindset of “rather them than us.”

The United States of America is the only country in the world to have used nuclear weaponary on civilian populations and we should be thankful that no other nuclear attack has been carried out in the numerous wars throughout the last 50 years fought by countries armed with nuclear weapons.

Nukes are now possessed by the USA, Russia, China, UK, France, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea and throughout the NATO countries many more have nuclear equipped bombers stationed at air bases throughout Europe in countries such as Holland, Italy and Germany.

The ultimate boogey man threat is that of a “rouge state” such as North Korea or Iran gaining their own nuclear capabilities and then passing them on to terrorists or threatening others with their use. However when one looks at the countries who are actually engaging in nuclear based threats we see that it is not members of the Axis of evil but existing nuclear democracies such as Israel and the USA who are making the threats to use nukes on others.

The current target of nuclear threats is Iran and whilst I whole heartedly agree that Iran would be better off without the Mullahs, Sharia law and the authoritarian government currently ruling it I would never wish it to become the second country in history to suffer a nuclear attack.

When President Obama or Benji Netanyahu make statements that include the sentence “all options are on the table” this infers the option of a pre-emptive nuclear attack. If you think that I am over egging it then you must not have heard about Obama’s interview in the New York Times in which he singled out both Iran and North Korea as countries that would not be covered by Washington’s pledge not to use nuclear weapons against states complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Now whilst North Korea is the only country to have left the NPT and Israel, Pakistan and India haven’t even signed up to it, Iran has done so and throughout recent years has also signed up to extra requirements that other signatories do not have to comply with such as allowing IAEA inspectors to spot check facilities at very short notice.

Iran has stated many times that is has no need for and no desire to aquire nuclear weapons and that it’s nuclear research is purely for energy related purposes. In fact it was actually the USA in 1967 that started Iran’s nuclear program off in the first place by supplying Tehran University with a research reactor and then later on Jimmy Carter and the Shah signed an agreement for the US to supply Iran with 8 nuclear power plants.

Obviously when the people of Iran decided to other throw the CIA installed puppet that had been forced on them the Americans changed their tune and Iran went from cosy ally and nuclear trading partner to the number one bad boy on their hit list. This hasn’t changed over the years and Israel is busy using it’s influence to push America to attack Iran and take care of it’s defence needs just like it did with Libya and Iraq before hand and unfortunately there are plenty of US Politicians prepared to put Israel’s national interests ahead of their own countrymen who are pushing for such an attack.

So whilst we have Iran a country who has signed up to the Non Proliferation Treaty and who reguarly allows international inspectors at very short notice to inspect all it’s plants and nuclear facilities we have Israel a non signatory to the NPT who owns an estimated 200+ nukes and is currently pushing for a pre-emptive and unwarranted illegal attack on another country.

Whilst the tactics used to start the Iraq war were a wake up call to many people it is clear now to many that the war mongering neo-con and Likud devil spawn are trying to use similar underhand tactics to push for yet more death and destruction all in the name of Israel’s “national security”.

The techniques to prepare a population for war with another country are well known and well used however the techniques change slightly as technology evolves. We can all see the black op push for war through the following mechanisms:

Blatantly false new stories spread quickly by right wing talking heads that aim to paint Iran in the light of an aggressor. The leading example is the mistranslation of the famous “wipe Israel off the map” speech which has been propagated around the world as if his words were set in stone. The only problem is that he said nothing of the sort yet he has been quoted as if he were literally threatening to nuke Israel.

Attempts to other throw the government through the support of anti-Iranian terrorist groups such as Jundallah a CIA supported terrorist organisation who’s leader was recently caught and executed. Not only did he confess to being supported by the CIA former CIA operatives admitted they were in contact with the group and Dick Cheney had authorised the use of such tactics to de-stablise Iran before leaving office. The recent post election protests had foreign fingerprints smeared all over it and are a clear sign of US taxpayer dollars being put to bad use yet again.

We also have the same phoney attempts at a diplomatic solution as were applied to Iraq by the UN.The recent ramping up of sanctions against Iran came after a seemingly sensible solution to the Uranium enrichment issue was offered by Brazil and Turkey, an idea which was quickly rejected by the other Security council members. This flat denial of a workable solution only raises suspicions that the aim of sanctions is to weaken Iran before an attack rather than solve any existing issues around their legitimate nuclear programme.

We also have the Israeli military build up along the borders of Iran in Georgia and Azerbaijan and the increased US Navy presence in the area which includes at least 12 warships and a number of aircraft carriers. Israel has been pushing for an attack on Iran for some years now and although George Bush and Dick Cheney were eager to help out in this regards the US military has been at the forefront of holding back on such an attack. However it now seems as if either Israel is prepared to start a war which it hopes the US has to finish or that the US doesn’t want to be seen as the aggressor and is waiting for some pretext to occur before wading into the fray.

Not only are our leaders preparing for war diplomatically and militarily they have been slowly conditioning the public to view Iran and Iranians in general as the bad guys through the use of hollywood films. It is no secret that the US military maintains close ties with the Hollywood crowd and in recent years the Iranians have been portrayed as the bad guys through films such as Alexander the Great and The 300 . Whilst you may not realise it, cultural forms such as films, plays and books have all been used throughout the ages to condition their audiences to make them more susceptible to the authors ideas. It is no surprise that our children are taught at an early age that boys are to play soldiers and girls are to be nurses. Get them whilst they are young is the motto of the mindless.

And to cap it off we have the blatantly false stories that are regularly implanted into the western media that try to link Iran with our current terrorist of the decade Osama Bin Laden. Recent claims that he was alive and well and seeking refuge in the mountains of Iran are laughable when one knows that he has in all likelihood been dead since 2001. Add to that the simple fact that Al Qaeda, a Sunni based Islamic group is diametrically opposed to the Shia Muslims aka Iran and one can see the sheer stupidity of believing an article that traces it’s roots back to an Israeli “intelligence” news source e.g DEBKAfile.

So it doesn’t take a psychic to see that the same games are being played out that led to the Iraq war. For those of us who care enough about preventing a possible third world war and the major clash of civilisations that has long been in the planning we can only spread the news so that people are made aware of the catasphope that is about to be unleashed once Iran was attacked

So on the anniversary of the first nuclear attack we should think ahead to the possibility of a new one and remember the words of Albert Einstein who famously said:

“I don’t know what weapons will be used in world war three, but in world war four people will use sticks and stones.”

Despite what the experts of barefoot diplomacy [1] never stop repeating, there is nothing even remotely anti-American in the Brazilian position on Iran: our motives, unlike those of the bullying trio (USA, France, United Kingdom), are clear, transparent and openly stated several times.

We support the peaceful development of nuclear energy. We do not believe there is any evidence that Iran has a secret nuclear-weapons program. Defending Iran, we are defending our own right to master the full nuclear-fuel cycle, we are defending our right to develop our own enrichment technology, we are defending our right to build our own reactors that will move the nuclear submarines that will defend our sovereignty. No more,  no less. We want for Iran just what we want for ourselves.

There is no proof that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the only international body that has the authority to speak on this subject and, being managed by a 32-country, hard-to-manipulate board, is relatively independent. If you don’t believe everybody could be lying so brazenly, read all the actual reports, here on IAEA’s page on Iran, and especially the latest one, here.

What the IAEA does state to keep the bullying trio and their lesser Chinese and Russian partners happy, after saying in unequivocal terms that the Iranian nuclear program is fully tracked and monitored and that there is no evidence of “diversion of purpose”, is that it cannot guarantee that a secret program is not active somewhere. Yet the very same thing can be said about Brazil, or South Korea, or Taiwan or even about Argentina. Iran is a signatory to the NPT and, according to what the IAEA has said repeatedly, it complies with all the safeguards established by the UN body.

The IAEA, however, complains that Iran refuses to comply with illegal Security Council resolutions demanding that it ceases enriching uranium, a right Iran has under the NPT terms. Nobody, not even the Security Council, has the legal power to prevent Iran from developing nuclear technology within the limits established by the NPT without overwhelming evidence that these limits are being exceeded. The IAEA complains that Iran does not adhere to the Additional Protocol, which is only voluntary – Brazil, for example, has not adhered to it  and denounces the AP as detrimental to national sovereignty. And it requires Iran to grant UN inspectors access to the sites where the centrifuges are designed and manufactured, which not only is not an obligation for Iran or for any other party to the NPT but is also absurd: a country under threat of a military attack by two nuclear powers (one of which has just reformed its nuclear posture to include the possibility of a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear country – an obvious violation of the NPT basic tenets) cannot be asked to reveal  where it manufactures the equipment that would allow it to rebuild what may be bombed, for these sites would then become the first targets.

Iran grants UN inspectors more access than for example Brazil, who, citing industrial secrecy, will not allow them to see what happens within our centrifuges: they can see what goes in at one end and what comes out from the other, but not what happens between them. Brazil, South Korea and Taiwan also do not disclose the sites where their centrifuges are designed and manufactured, and at least Brazil, in full compliance with the safeguards negotiated with the IAEA by the Brazilian government at the time we joined the NPT in 1997, allows no access to the development program for nuclear-submarine reactors, claiming military secrecy - Brazil does have a military nuclear program, Iran does not.

The Iranian government  even volunteered to abide by the intrusive NPT Additional Protocol terms in 2003, giving UN inspectors unrestricted and unannounced access to  any facility in Iran in which in their opinion there could be anything related to a nuclear-weapons development program, but withdrew from them almost two years later after realising that throwing everything wide open and having inspectors poking around did nothing to diminish the “West’s” suspicions – because, of course, these “suspicions” are and have always been unfounded, and thus resistant to any contrary evidence.

So, despite all attempts at negotiation and the guarantees the Iranians have made for the past  20 years, despite lacking the technological capacity to enrich uranium to the levels needed to make atomic weapons or to reprocess spent fuel and for producing plutonium, despite the Iranian nuclear program being  subject to strict surveillance by the IAEA with on-site inspections and 24/7 cameras installed at all sites linked to the production of LEU at 3.5% and 20%, despite  postponing the start of uranium enrichment programme to 20% so that the IAEA staff could inspect the centrifuges and install surveillance cameras, despite all fissile material in Iran being fully accounted for and tracked, despite Iran’s repeated agreements in the past to suspend enrichment activities,  to which they are entitled, so as to boost confidence and facilitate negotiations,  despite Iran’s agreement with Brazil and Turkey to export most of their LEU according to the exact terms proposed by the Vienna Group and despite fulfilling its obligations under the IAEA Safeguards even though the country has been put under unjustified sanctions, Iran is still officially accused of “non- transparency” and of having a secret military program, and unofficially of being on the brink of making an atomic bomb (read here how to lie about Iran with UN support).  And gradually, what was just rabid media scaremongering becomes the basis for the next round of official lies.

In short, it is clear that the charge that Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons is just another excuse, sustained by lies, for  ulterior motives.

If it was possible to blatantly lie about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” and then devastate Iraq, if they can lie shamelessly about the Iranian nuclear program and threaten Iran with a military strike, what is to ensure that the same thing will not happen to Brazil tomorrow? Today, we are friends and allies of the United States, and even signed a military cooperation agreement with them, but who can tell what our relations would  be like in two, ten, twenty years? If the U.S., France and the UK have reasons to want to attack Iran for who knows exactly what reason, how can we be sure that they will not find a bunch of similar reasons to attack Brazil, or prevent it from developing this or that technology if it is convenient to them?

If we allow Iran to be illegally prevented from developing a peaceful nuclear program they are entitled to, the NPT would become a dead letter, and we may be subject to the same treatment in the future. The illegal attack against Iran’s rights and the preparation of another illegal military intervention against a sovereign country under false pretenses obviously needs to be stopped now, while it is still possible. Brazil has a duty to defend the rights of Iranians today, lest we endanger our own rights in the future. Our status as an emergent global power and the very continuity of our development depend on our unconditional support for the right of the Iranian people to develop a peaceful nuclear program without interference, threats and attacks.

Russia and China have their own motives (some perhaps recognisable but almost all venal and none related to Iran’s nuclear program) to support the attempt to push Iran into a corner. The U.S., Britain and France have a very long track record of meddling in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, and it is no surprise that they now may want to attack yet another country in the list of those they have invaded in the region since the eighteenth century – all except Iran and modern, post-Ottoman Turkey. The other seven countries (including two – Bosnia-Herzegovina and Uganda, whose GDPs are equivalent to the budget of Brazil’s Bolsa Familia income-transfer program, and another – Togo – with a GDP lower than the budget for education in the state of Bahia) yielded to the formidable pressure and blackmail of the United States and the two former colonial powers that have caused much misery in the Middle East over the past two centuries. This bullying  trio has even tested  us and almost succeeded against Turkey on the eve of the Brazil-Iran-Turkey agreement – which was forged  only at the insistence of the Brazilian president.

Countries that were not subjected to these pressures, such as Indonesia, India, Central Asia nations, Pakistan, South Africa and most African countries who voiced their views on Iran’s nuclear programme, Portugal, Norway (both part of the EU, officially pro-sanctions), all of South America except Colombia and Chile, all of Central America except for Panama, the 57-nation Organisation of Islamic Conference and the 118 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement declared themselves against the imposition of new sanctions. And, with the exception of the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK and the few others who were quiet about it, every country in the world, including France, hailed the Tehran Declaration.

Brazil has now the obligation to live up to the trust and solidarity it got from the real international community and be faithful to the principles that guided the negotiations leading to the May 17 agreement, defending  by all means the path of negotiation and dialogue to solve the Iranian impasse.

View the original article at Global Research

With the help of friendly nations, Iran is playing a smart game. In an effort to take the heat off its nuclear programme, Tehran has agreed in principle to accept a uranium exchange scheme proposed by its allies Turkey and Brazil. Under the scheme, Iran would swap its low-level enriched uranium stockpile for nuclear fuel rods that can be used only for civilian nuclear use.

Although Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has the right to enrich uranium to such levels to meet its energy needs, it is considering the scheme to allay suspicions that it is planning to build a bomb. In particular, it is keen to ward off additional sanctions currently being mulled in the UN Security Council, to which China and Russia are opposed in varying degrees.

Uranium enrichment is the nub of the long dispute between Iran and Western powers — spurred on by Tel Aviv, which views Iran as an existential threat. Tehran insists that its programme is peaceful and maintains there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. That is, indeed, the case, although a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors Report dated February 18 discloses concerns that “Iran has not provided the necessary cooperation to permit the Agency to confirm that all nuclear material in Iran is [used] in peaceful activities.”

Iran’s agreement to a uranium swap with Brazil — that would take place on the Iranian-Turkish border — would go a long way to putting the nuclear watchdog’s doubts to rest. But this would be unlikely to pacify the US or Israel, which believe that Tehran is trying to buy time.

However, were an uranium-exchange programme to proceed, Iran’s detractors may be loath to question the credibility of NATO member Turkey or Brazil, which is a serious contender for permanent membership of an expanded UN Security Council. Both Turkey and Brazil have rebuffed anti-Iranian sanctions. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva asserts that “peace in the world does not mean isolating someone” and is poised to visit Iran on May 15 to discuss the proposed uranium exchange.

In the meantime, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad travelled to New York last week to participate in a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Summit, where he railed against Western powers for attempting to deny his country the right to nuclear energy while turning a blind eye to Israel’s alleged stockpile of nuclear weapons. He also accused Washington of supporting terrorist networks as well as “threatening non-nuclear states”.

Unfortunate tone

While many developing nations agree with Iran’s nuclear arguments, several objected to Ahmadinejad’s strident anti-American sentiment and felt obliged to distance themselves from the Iranian delegation rather than get into Washington’s bad books.

As usual, British, French and US delegations walked out from the get-go. In a surprise move, a US official did, however, attend a dinner for all 15 UN Security Council members hosted by Iran’s foreign minister, which was the first time since 1979 that America has been officially represented at such an event.

For the moment, Tehran is still in the international doghouse. But its acceptance of the uranium swap could prompt a turnaround with the spotlight then falling on Israel’s policy of nuclear ambiguity as well as its failure to sign up to the NPT.

It seems that Israel’s right-wing government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, has never heard of the adage “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”. Israel refuses to admit the existence of its nuclear weapons programme or its massive nuclear arsenal, yet threatens to destroy the nuclear facilities of an NPT signatory that does open its doors to IAEA inspection and monitoring.

Israel’s glaring hypocrisy has thrust its own nuclear weapons into the forefront, sparking calls for a nuclear-free Middle East backed by US President Barack Obama who is working closely with Egypt to arrange a conference around the topic. Obama should be applauded for taking such a courageous step in the face of vehement opposition at home when it is clear that the initiative is directed at the region’s only nuclear-armed nation — Israel.

On May 5 in New York, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council issued a written commitment to a Middle East devoid of nuclear weapons, stating: “We are ready to consider all relevant proposals in the course of the NPT Review Conference in order to come to an agreed decision aimed at making concrete steps in this direction.” The statement also calls for all states to join the NPT and for those with nuclear weapons to disarm — which, again, applies only to Israel.

In this case, Ahmadinejad should acknowledge his US counterpart’s unprecedented stance and quit his anti-American theatrics. This is a moment when goodwill and cooperation could be mightier than harsh rhetoric. An Iranian decision to return to the fold would take the wind out of Israel’s sails and leave it out on a limb. This window of opportunity won’t last forever. It shouldn’t be missed

view the original article at Online Journal

(WMR) – WMR has learned from U.S. and Middle East intelligence sources that the Obama administration has authorized an increase in signals intelligence (SIGINT) gathering directed against Turkey and Brazil. Both nations are acting as intermediaries with Iran to hammer out a deal to swap uranium for Iran’s low-enriched uranium used for its nuclear power generating needs for nuclear fuel from abroad.

As the UN Security Council debates applying new sanctions on Iran, Turkey and Brazil, which are opposed to new sanctions, are quietly negotiating between Tehran and Russia and China to ensure that there will be at least one permanent member Security Council veto of a sanctions resolution.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is due to visit Tehran next week for the G15 Summit, with the nuclear fuel for uranium deal seen as high on his agendas in talks with Iranian officials. Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, the nation’s former chief nuclear negotiator, recently met with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Istanbul. The nuclear swap deal was also high on the talk’s agenda.

The independent initiatives of Turkey and Brazil has rankled the Obama administration and frequent dictator of its Iran foreign policy, Israel, which favor strong crippling sanctions on Iran.

The National Security Agency’s (NSA) Regional Targets Section has applied a tactic on Turkey and Brazil used on the eve of the UN Security Council vote on authorizing military action on Iraq — “surge” surveillance of the telephones and e-mail of the Turkish and Brazilian UN delegations conducted in January 2003. The surge surveillance is also being directed against key Turkish and Brazilian ministries and the nation’s respective embassies in Moscow and Beijing. Turkey and Brazil are current non-permanent members of the Security Council.

Concerning the 2003 surge surveillance by NSA, on September 25, 2008, WMR reported: ” . . . it has been discovered that the United States and United Kingdom wanted to intercept the office and home communications of the UN ambassadors of Pakistan, Chile, Angola, Guinea, Cameroon, and Mexico, six non-permanent members of the Security Council, to gather information that could be used to blackmail the ambassadors into voting for the US/UK Iraq war resolution. Ultimately, the Security Council refused to back the resolution.”

Similar to the 2003 action by the Bush administration, the Obama administration is also turning up surveillance on other UN Security Council members’ UN missions to ascertain their vote on Iranian sanctions. These include Japan, Uganda, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Gabon, Austria, and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

There are strong indications that Uganda and Lebanon will vote no on sanctions with a possibility that Japan and Austria will join them in opposition or abstain. Turkey is suspected of using its influence in Bosnia and its new diplomatic forays into Gabon and Nigeria to press for no votes on sanctions. These activities are all of interest to NSA’s Turkish communications interception personnel.

WMR has learned from State Department sources that the Obama administration is also pushing for secondary sanctions against nations that would continue to trade with Iran after the U.S. gets UN authorization for strong sanctions against Tehran. Such sanctions would be applied by the United States Treasury Department against companies in second countries that refuse to abide by sanctions with the primary targets being companies in Sweden, Austria, Cyprus, and Turkey.

The proposed UN Security Council text on sanctions being crafted by the United States, United Kingdom, and France is not being shared with the governments of Turkey and Brazil, the fear being that Ankara and Brasilia will share the text with Iranian officials. One Turkish official said, “The Americans are asking us to vote for a UN Security Council resolution we have not seen.” Turkey and Brazil are not alone. Because of Uganda’s and Lebanon’s close ties with Iran, the UN delegations of both countries are not being shown the draft text of the Security Council sanctions resolution.

View the original article at Online Journal

“Countries like Iran are developing their own UAVs and already have a UAV capability,” Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee, using the acronym the military uses for drones — Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

“That is a concern, because it is one of these areas where — if they chose to, in Iraq, in Afghanistan — they could create difficulties for us.”

Drones however “are relatively slow flyers and we have a very capable Air Force. So I actually think that our ability to protect our troops from these things, particularly in a combat theater like this is quite good.”

The main concern, he said, was that terrorists could get hold of the drones.

“My worry would be capabilities like this getting in the hands of non-state actors who could use them for terrorist purposes,” Gates said.

The defense secretary also told the committee that the U.S. plans to spread the unmanned weapon technology to allied nations.

“There are other countries that are very interested in this capability and frankly it is, in my view, in our interest to see what we can do to accommodate them,” he said, according to Reuters.

Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi in February opened two production lines for the manufacture of “advanced” unmanned aircraft or drones, Fars news agency reported.

The drones would be able to carry out “surveillance, detection and even assaults with high precision,” the report said.

With AFP.

View the original article

Is the United States planning to bomb Iran? A British newspaper has reported the United States is shipping bombs to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to possibly do just that. Lawrence Wilkerson says that if the US is, they cannot simply use airstrikes to attack Iran.