The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
There is mounting evidence that the Bush Administration in liaison with Israel and NATO is planning the launching of a nuclear war against Iran, ironically, in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program. The US-Israeli military operation is said to be in “an advanced state of readiness”.
If such a plan were to be launched, the war would escalate and eventually engulf the entire Middle-East Central Asian region.
The war could extend beyond the region, as some analysts have suggested, ultimately leading us into a World War III scenario.
In this regard, the structure of military alliances is crucial. China and Russia have entered into farreaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. The latter have a direct bearing on the conflict. Iran possesses an advanced air defense system as well as capabilities to target US and allied positions in Iraq and the Gulf States, as demonstrated in recent military exercises.
The US-led naval deployment (involving a massive deployment of military hardware) is taking place in two distinct theaters:the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria, it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission. In this context, the war on Lebanon last Summer must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map.
The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada.
The naval buildup is coordinated with the air attacks. The planning of aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remain classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the stockpiling and deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
Despite Pentagon statements which describe tactical nuclear weapons as “safe for the surrounding civilian population”, the use of nukes in a conventional war theater would trigger a nuclear holocaust.The resulting radioactive contamination, which threatens future generations, would by no means be limited to the Middle East.
In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan “to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States”. The presumption was that if such a 9/11 type event were to take place, Iran would, according to Cheney, be behind it, thereby providing a pretext for punitive bombings, much in the same way as the US sponsored attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists
More recently, several analysts have focussed on the creation of a “Gulf of Tonkin incident”, which would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext to wage war on Iran.
We bring to the attention of our readers a selection of Global Research articles, which document various aspects of US-Israeli war preparations.
It is essential that this information reaches the broader public. We invite our subscribers and readers to distribute and forward these articles far and wide.
To reverse the tide of war requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel.
Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.
There seems to be a reluctance by members of Congress to exercise their powers under the US Constitution, with a view to preventing the unthinkable: the onslaught of a US sponsored nuclear war. The consequences of this inaction could be devastating. Once the decision is taken at the political level, it will be very difficult to turn the clock backwards.
Moreover, the antiwar movement has not addressed the US sponsored nuclear threat on Iran in a consistent way, in part due to divisions within its ranks, in part due to lack of information. Moreover, a significant sector of the antiwar movement considers that the “threat of Islamic terrorism” is real. “We are against the war, but we support the war on terrorism.” This ambivalent stance ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the US national security doctrine which is predicated on waging the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT).
At this juncture, with the popularity of the Bush-Cheney regime at an all time low, a real opportunity exists to initiate an impeachment process, which could contribute to temporarily stalling the military agenda.
The corporate media also bear a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. Until recently these war preparations involving the use of nuclear weapons have been scarcely covered by the corporate media. The latter must also be forcefully challenged for their biased coverage of the Middle East war.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.
It is essential to bring the US-Israeli war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America, Western Europe and Israel. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 20 January 2007
Selected Articles on the Proposed US-Israeli Nuclear War on Iran
Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?.
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts & realities upside down. It states that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use will ensure “minimal collateral damage”.
US military strike on Iran seen by April ’07; Sea-launched attack to hit oil, N-sites
-by Ahmed Al-Jarallah – 2007-01-15
Nuclear War against Iran
Detailed review first published in January 2006
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07
«Babylon-2»: On US-Israeli Plans For a Nuclear War
– by Dmitriy Baklin – 2007-01-20
Bush administration provokes open war on Iran
Irbil raid, and other operations, authorized “several months ago”
– by Larry Chin – 2007-01-15
Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07
Immediate Impeachments: Preventing “The Guns of August” in Eurasia
– by Prof. Francis Boyle – 2007-01-20
If Bush and Cheney are not stopped immediately by means of impeachment, they could readily set off World War III in the volatile Middle East and Central Asia.
Israel’s plans to Wage Nuclear War on Iran: History of Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal
Hundreds of nuclear warheads under the control of Israel’s defense establishment
– by Michael Carmichael – 2007-01-15
Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation
– by Colonel Sam Gardiner – 2007-01-16
The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The media will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.
The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-04
Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World’s oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.
“Cold War Shivers”: War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-10-06
The Russian, Chinese and Iran war exercises conducted since August are part of a carefully coordinated endeavor, in response to the US-NATO military build-up
Iran’s President Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”
– by Arash Norouzi – 2007-01-20
Across the world, through media disinformation, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications
The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2006-10-01
A powerful naval armada has been sent to the Persian Gulf.
The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks
– by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya – 2006-09-21
An attack on Iran would engulf the entire Middle East and Central Asian region into an extensive confrontation.
The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2006-02-17
The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons & nuclear bombs. The nuclear bunker buster bomb is presented as an instrument of peace-making & regime change, which will enhance global security.
Looking for a Gulf of Tonkin-like Incident
– by Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay – 2007-01-21
How Congress Can Stop the Iran Attack or be Complicit in Nuclear War Crimes
– by Prof. Jorge Hirsch – 2007-01-20
Planned Attack on Iran: Bush Will Expand War Before Blair Resigns
US timetable driven by retirement of Bush’s major ally, PM Tony Blair
– by Michael Carmichael – 2007-01-16
Secret “agreement of principles” between Israel and Syria
What implications for US-Israeli war on Iran?
Media Distortions: Preparing us for War with Iran
The difference between “a” and “the” can be the difference between no war and nuclear war
– by Floyd Rudmin – 2007-01-19
