Nuclear War against Iran

[katty]

cont'd at:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20CH20060103&articleId=1714

Nuclear War against Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

January 3, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

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

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

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

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

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

In turn, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has given the green light to the Israeli Armed Forces to launch the attacks by the end of March:

All top Israeli officials have pronounced the end of March, 2006, as the deadline for launching a military assault on Iran.... The end of March date also coincides with the IAEA report to the UN on Iran's nuclear energy program.

[Richard D]

1. Now that is disturbing.

To say the least.

[Flabbergasted]

2. How reliable is this site?

[madrchsod]

4. not quite tin foil

we could speculate as well as they do

[madrchsod]

3. ain`t going to happen

it would plunge the world into a depression someone will not carry out the order

[Joe for Clark]

5. Indeed, disturbing.

I don't think even the pretender can pull this off without offensive action by Iran.

What congress - up for reelection - will authorize this???

I hope, anyway, this window for war closed for the SOB months ago.

I think he shaved 2 points or so in 2004 and so got elected, improperly. I think that was the best he could do. He can't shave 10 or more, and that is what he faces in November- especially not in 50 states simulaneously.

I don't care how good the guy controls computer voting - we are the United States, and we tar and feather pretenders.

Joe

[DRoseDARs]

6. I call BS...

NATO would never approve of or take part in a nuclear first-strike against a non-nuclear nation like Iran. We already have reports Iran is years away from being nuclear, much like Iraq only Iran actually has a program capable. Iraq had long-empty buildings and retired scientists. This article really makes a stretch to connect a nuclear first-strike with strikes against nuclear facilities. The two types of attacks ARE NOT the same.

While I think conventional airstrikes against Iranian facilities are very likely, nuclear strikes are total fantasy. The United States would make itself an instant parriah and there'd be sanctions levied against us by the civilized world, devestating the economy. US interests abroad (both military, civilian, and corporate) would be subject to mass retribution from terrorists and very angry general populations. Countries would pull their ambassadors and we'd be isolated on the diplomatic stage.

[yurbud]

11. The American Conservative magazine ran this last summer

They had also printed Col. Karen Kwiatkowski's damning and accurate account of working with the neocon civilians in the Pentagon.

In that story, Cheney asked the Pentagon to draw up plans for conventional and nuclear strikes on Iran in response to a terrorist attack here, whether or not Iran did it.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/07/cheney-plans-to-nuke-iran.html

Which sounds like how we got into the mess in Iraq.

The public would be outraged by either a conventional or nuke attack on Iran absent a motivator like 9/11. The problem is, a 9/11 level attack would not have the same galvanizing effect on public opinion (how many people remember the SECOND set of astronauts to land on the moon?)so it will have to be bigger--nuke.

There's a reason we turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear arms bazaar.

[punpirate]

12. True, the two types of attacks are not the same...

... but only in the context you provide. I would guess the article writer has a number of things in the back of his head which do impinge on the analysis. You need to also consider the following:

1) The last Nuclear Posture Review spells out US willingness to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
2) The Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations sets guidelines for the use of nuclear weapons and offers battlefield commanders to option of use once a general approval is given by the President.
3) Many of the facilities used by the Iranians for uranium processing are buried (Iran has been doing this since the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980). Conventional weapons will not significantly damage them. This is why the Bush administration pushed for the redevelopment of existing nuclear "bunker busters" to make them more effective. At present, the general operational belief in the nuclear design field is that the proposed "mini-nukes" won't do the job and reliance must be put on existing large nuclear weapons (in the 1.2-1.4 megaton range) to create a crater exposing deeply buried targets. The prospect for significant amounts of radioactive fallout (and attendant civilian deaths) with either scheme is high.

What has been proposed, instead, is the development of directed force weapons to be used against the openings to buried targets.

Overall, though, it's been standard litany amongst the right wing for many years that nuclear weapons be used tactically to increase military effectiveness (see, for example, the PNAC's "Rebuilding American Defenses"), and the folks running the White House and the Pentagon are the ones promoting such policies. At some point, we may find out the hard way that such talk isn't just bravado or bluff and is a policy intended to be carried out. That's a concern which bears some further thought.

With regard to NATO, the issue may be more that Turkey is a NATO member and authority from them would be necessary to make overflights in such an attack. That may be all that the US is asking of Turkey, and that may be all that Turkey knows. In fact, if the US had intentions to use nuclear weapons on Iran, it would serve those interests not to tell Turkey (or to give Turkey assurances nuclear weapons wouldn't be used), since Turkey might scotch the idea if they knew. More importantly, agreement from NATO countries may only be necessary for overflights after the missions are complete. The US doesn't need NATO support to mount any attack, but it may need overflight assurances to provide the quickest and safest escape route for attacking aircraft.

Beyond that, this administration has made the assertion repeatedly and publicly that it won't be bound by treaties if it thinks those treaties impede its ability to provide for the country's "security."

By my estimate, it's still a possibility. More remote than I think Chossudovsky paints it, but it's still possible, for the reasons above.

Cheers.

[ddeclue]

15. Nuclear weapons use in a multi-nuclear world will always result in escalat

-ion. If Bush uses nukes on Iran, what keeps North Korea from freaking out and retaliating against the West Coast in a pre-emptive strike in fear that they are next? What keeps China from retaliating against the U.S. for attacking their oil supply? What keeps Iran from sinking all of our capital ships in the Gulf? or attacking Saudia Arabian oil supplies and facilities because they know it will hurt us worse than it will hurt the Saudis? What keeps the Saudis from cutting off the oil in protest?

No this will never happen because no one in the world supports it either in the United States, in Europe, in Asia, or the middle east. Bush could not do this without informing Congress and if he did they would tell him no. If he ignored their no, then they would use it as the final straw excuse to impeach him.

Bush would have to do a whole lot of selling first and his credibility is long since gone so he can't sell anything any more. He couldn't even sell his social security plan last year. So no we aren't going to attack Iran either conventionally or nuclearly.

The only people who might would be Israel and I don't even think they would do it.

Doug D.

[FloridaPat]

7. They're going to nuke Iran and take all that oil offline for centuries?

Are these people really that stupid? fromthewilderness had an article that by disrupting the Iranian oil, which quite a bit of the rest of the world depends on, would make Russia, China, most of Europe, all the Middle East do something against us.

[ddeclue]

8. Somehow I doubt it...

There's no way Bush could pre-emptively nuke Iran and not expect to be impeached and what about all the fallout? Do you think Russia, China, or most of the Middle East would appreciate that? Not to mention all of our troops who would likely be exposed to fallout in Iraq. This would cause a general world war, so I don't think even George is that stupid.

Doug D.

[Kablooie]

9. Not that stupid?

Oh brother. You don't know our little Georgie very well, do you?

I would not put it past him at all. Especially because a world war would
probably put off any impeachment even if we wanted it.

Scary times with Mr. Snidely Tinfoil Whiplash running the country.

[ddeclue]

10. Take off the tinfoil hat..

and no I understand exactly about Bush but he isn't God and doesn't have unlimited powers and there's no upside to attacking Iran for him, it's all downside as I previously described.

You've got to stop worrying about what ifs that simply arent' going to happen and start concentrating on the stuff that actually HAS happened like Iraq and the wiretaps. We can't get anywhere because we can't focus in the Democratic party. Everybody wants to discuss the hidden meaning of everything instead of working on the things that we can actually use to impeach Bush.

Doug D.

[yurbud]

13. tinfoil If someone had predicted 9/11 leading to Iraq War?

or that the war was based on 100% BS and even Democrats wouldn't talk about the real reasons for the war?

If you get ahead of the curve, you don't get caught with your pants down.

Frankly, one reason Kerry got hosed in the election was he didn't take the vote rigging issue seriously enough because he was afraid it would look like "conspiracy theory" thinking.

Get your head out of your ass.

There are some significant obstacles to Bush doing this Iran thing, namely the CIA and the Pentagon, but they are probably working all the angles to put it together.

Bush said iraq will be remembered as a success in future decades, and in one sense he meant it and was right: he took over the oil concessions from Russia and France and gave them to American oil companies.

If that is the standard of success, no loss of money, goodwill in the world, or human life could make Iran a failure as long as one of Bush's cronies gets his hand on the oil spigot.

[ddeclue]

14. Excuse you..

I knew the Iraq war was 100% B.S. at the time but that wasn't totally blueskying something when the Bush administration hadn't even brought it up yet.

You are so far "ahead of the curve" that it's ridiculous. There is no point in discussing stuff this far out because it just won't happen.

And nobdoy thinks Iraq is a success, Bush can say it but he doesn't believe it.

Vote rigging was theoretically possible but no one has proved that it actually occurred, only that it COULD occur. That isn't worth bringing to court and wouldn't help Kerry be President no matter how much you want to cry about it.

Kerry lost because he played it safe on Iraq when he should have gone back to his VVAW roots.

Get your head out of the clouds...

Doug D.

[yurbud]

17. you're half right on Kerry--he should have gone back to 71 not Shrum

[salvorhardin]

16. The author is a weather control conspiracy freak

See: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html
The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use
by Michel Chossudovsky

He's also a big "New World Order" thinker if I remember correctly. Not exactly the most credible of sources.

On edit: Yeah, I'm right. B'Nai Brith Canada filed a complain about Michel Chossudovsky with his employer the University of Ottawa.

A Jewish group has filed a complaint to the University of Ottawa against one of its professors after the discovery of content on his website that blames Jews for the terrorist attacks on the United States, and claims the numbers who died at Auschwitz are exaggerated.

The website, www.globalresearch.ca, also reprints articles from other writers that accuse Jews of controlling the U.S. media and masterminding the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Other postings suggest Israel, the U.S. and Britain are the real perpetrators of the recent attacks on London.

The site, which is not hosted by the university, is run by Michel Chossudovsky, a controversial left-leaning economist, and came to the attention of B'nai Brith Canada after public complaints to the advocacy group and the Citizen.

"The material on the site is full of wild conspiracy theories that go so far as to accuse Israel, America and Britain of being behind the recent terrorist bombings in London," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada. "They echo the age-old anti-Semitic expressions that abound in the Arab world, which blame the Jews for everything from 9/11 to the more recent tsunami disaster."

The organization singles out a discussion forum, moderated by Mr. Chossudovsky, that features a subject heading called "Some Articles On The Truth of the Holocaust." The messages have titles such as "Jewish Lies of Omission (about the 'Holocaust')," "Jewish Hate Responsible For Largest Mass Killing at Dachau," and "Did Jews Frame the Arabs for 9/11?"

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/08/u_of_o_professo.php

Just another antisemitic holocaust denier spouting the same old claptrap.

[No Exit]

18. Ariel? Oh... won't see him no more.

(Taken from "The Godfather": Sonny: "How's Pauly?" Clemenza: "Oh, Pauly? Won't see him no more.")