Bombs on Iran!

[Skybird]

DOWNLOAD of complete text for easier reading:
http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/BOI.doc

Since it‘s still some weeks until my SBP review, and since I had technical problems and thus was absent for a month recently, I think it is high time for another brief essay

Abraham will count the words for that list of his...

Let’s forget Ahmadinejad for a while (I will never come to order with these oriental names: ignore my spelling), let’s look at Iran and the complete set of factual variables that form up the situation and define Iran’s longterm strategy – and the different interests of it’s opponents. The situation’s structure is pretty obvious and reasonable, imo, but since the Iran war already has started and is in phase one (influencing the public to favour the war, and rallying it behind one’s own flag, that is all part of the psychological warfare), since rethorics from both sides already starts to take over and emotions of the public start to spike high again, these simple facts easily get lost and are replaced by catch phrases, irrationality and illogical thinking. It’s an automatic process that is currently running, and as with Iraq, this time again an immediate threat by WMDs has not much to do with it all.

The following is by 90% a translation of that article on Iran by Georg Meggle, that I have linked to two times in the last week. Only at some occasion I throw in some additional thoughts of mine, or material by the very same author in his article on Iraq, that I also linked to a week ago. I certainly agree with most if not all points the author is giving, and since I see myself unable to improve the structure in which they are given in his text, I decided to simply translate his work for the most and accept to give him all credit, instead of writing my own work that probably would be far inferior in structure. If it is good, keep it, don’t mess it up...

Text in normal print is my translation of Meggle’s text. My own thoughts or addings are given in quote-boxes. Not much that I could add, though. Meggle’s text could have been written by me. Some of my remarks also are a bit off-straying, not directly linked to Iran, but I find their perspective important, and indirectly contributing to the overall theme.

.
.
.
Reflections on the war against Iran

Bombs on Iran? This is no open question anymore. Open are only these questions:

When?
Who? (Israel? USA? Both? Other participants?)
What targets?
What kind of bombs?
Why/What for?
What will the world look like afterwards?


1. REASONS OF WAR


1.1 Reasons to attack


The option to attack Iran in the main is an option of Israel and, not formulated that obviously, an option of the US. But without american backup (especially politically, but also militarily) an Israeli attack is hard to imagine. So we concentrate on America’s reasons for war first.

1.1.1
The official main argument to attack Iran is the very same like three years ago in case of Iraq. The argument has two components:

a.) One needs – preemptively again – to prevent the nightmare as such: WMDs shall not get into hands of terrorists and/or Al Quaeda. Iran, so is the argument, supports these groups. Ergo...
b.) Even Iran itself in possession of WMDs would be a threat to world peace and global stability. Ergo...


1.1.2
Even the „semi-official“ reason is repeating itself. An Iran with WMD would be a primary threat for Israel. A single Hiroshima-bomb dropped on Tel Aviv – and Israel would be history. Ergo...

1.1.3
Also the substantial, fundamental reason is the same like in the past two (!) Gulf wars. It is the geostrategical perspective: the ahead-looking view that is encompassing both the whole century to come, and the whole globe. For the West, control of ressources (especially oil and gas) in the Middle and „Far Middle“ East, in the Gulf and in the Caspian region, is absolutely essential. An Iran that is evading such control and influence, or even eventually, maybe, possibly COULD evade in the future, near or far, already is threatening the lifeblood of the „free West“. Ergo...

1.1.4
Each of these reasons already is conclusive by it’s own , especially for the US. The four motivational pillars – war on terror, securing of world peace, to guarantee the existence of Israel, geostrategy – additionally support each other, and thus it all is resulting in an additional Western motive „pro bellum“ on a generic level.

1.1.5
I do not examine the standard argument, that the socalled Military-Industrial-Complex, and the American economy in general, could only function effectively and help to keep prosperity and economy in swing, if the time of peace between two (expensive) high tech wars is not getting too long. It is a very important and complex argument, but even if it would have consequences for Iran, it is not limited to the case of Iran exclusively.

Nevertheless one should also remember that the ammount of wars America has started all by itself is impressive. Military historians counted, that America is starting an „intervention“, an „operation“, a major „strike“, roughly every two years. For America, war is, different from what most Europeans are thinking today, an accepted, almost traditional habit, almost a way of life, which is made easy, since these wars are somewhat hidden for the most, and mostly are not perceived as „war“, but a limited operation, a polcie operation, a presence, a cooperation, a whatever but anything but war - and almost every time they are so far away that it is easy to ignore them. Most people that talk about war – never have fallen victim to one, never have experienced it in their own homeland, do not know by experience what it does and how it hurts a country, a culture, a people. It is exciting TV pictures only, for the most. War has never been carried onto continental American soil by a foreign foe. The high acceptance for war also may come from America seeing itself on a mission, a mission to not only to defend, but to spread American values. And since these American values even are generalized to be valid for all mankind, they tend to be understood as universal values, that must be universally enforced. In this inner logic, concerning this missionary drive (not it’s content, but it’s motivational spirit), America is not different at all from Islam. Both ideologies, Americanism and Islam, are highly expansive, and have a high cultural penetration power (for partly different reasons, though, the first depending on an understanding of real material and imagined ideological superiority, the latter depending on self-perceived ideological superiority exclusively). And finally: qualifying for the status of beeing en empire in the understanding of the traditional maritime empires we already have seen, America is subject to the same inner determinants and self-dynamics empires always are ruled by. It is both pushing into „borderzones“, into the periphery of the territoy beeing the emipir’S coreland (what in times of globalization and simultaneity has a different meanings than in the times of local empires), but all too often is pulled by these zones at the same time, and away from it’s center. Empires cannot stay and freeze in a status quo forever, and they cannot shrink and survive, they only survive as long as they expand. They cannot escape this logic. While often critizism for the course of American policy is justified, one also needs to see that it faces challenges and developements in it’s peripheries that it cannot ignore and simply pass by. If it would do so, that also would be to the massive disadvantage of those of us (mostly European nations) that love to critizise it for it’s selfish actions so often. I am aware of this dilemma, and always was. No chance that I would ever voluntarily live in the Middle East, or in comparable living conditions. I will always prefer Europe, and here: Middle and Nothern Europe, and here: Germany. I do not resist my wish for comfort and security, peace and relative high level of freedom. One needs to keep in mind that also the ruling faction, the strongest player, the king of the hill, by far has no complete freedom of action all of the time without accepting massive damage to himself in case of violating these limitations of an empire. Empires do not have the freedom not to act. They also have no freedom for unlimited tolerance, that is an illusion. And it wouldn’t be reasonable to demand someone to act knowingly to his hurting disadvantage - this is true with regard to America. With regard to Israel . And with regard to Iran as well.
I do not think the crisis is „hot“, I still think that there are many years left until it would turn into a critical issue, but it already is a situation that is a dilemma for all participants, and for me trying to decide whose side I‘m on it is a dilemma as well. I see no right side and one, that is not right. I see noone having all justice on his side in this, while his opponent is all evil. I only see two sides, both beeing subject to immense inner dynamics that determine what their interests necessarily MUST be, and I see which side is the strong and which side is the weak one (thus: the winner and the looser of the showdown). I also don’t think that the time until the crisis really becomes critical will be consumed completely. Like the author of the original text I am of the opinion that we are already living in war, first phase: preparing the public. The life fire will start sometime after Iran’s partially helping influence in Iraq no longer is needed - or wanted - by the US in Iraq (they never were close allies anyway, weren’t they ), and if the Israelis don’t trigger the showdown by themselves and ahead of the American timetables.

1.1.6
All these reasons in favour of war are also reasons of Israel. Of course, for Israel the feeling of beeing threatend in it’s very own existence is further increased by every – subjective or realistic – perception of weakening of it’s current total military superiority.

To some degree, this can be understood in case of Israel. From an Israeli perspective it is another reason for: bombs on Iran!

Not only an opponent gaining the strength of eventually meeting the Israeli military on terms of equal strength is threatening, but even the smallest changes in the current status of total superiority. A status of total, undisputed control is considered to be the only acceptable option. The right that one side is claiming for itself, that way is completely and passionately denied to the other side. Which, of course, creates growing resistance (where there is pressure, there is counter-pressure...)

1.2 The other side


From the perspective of Iran the world is looking slightly different: primarily it is Iranian interests that currently are threatend.

1.2.1
According to current world order, the ressources of a country in the first are possessed by that country itself, and thus are it’s own („ironic mode on“: the modern idea that public goods – oil, water, and in the forseeable future, predictably, breathing air as well – could be privatized and become possessings of individuals only, still is not too wide-spread in Islamic countries: „ironic mode off“). So:

a.) the right of disposal on it’ oil ressource is non-negotiable for Iran,
b.) every foreign party’s demand to control these ressources, that has not been admitted to by Iran in a sovereign, unmanipulated process of decision-making, is regarded as an unacceptable limiting of Iran’s sovereignity.

The German constitution wisely says in the Grundgesetz, Article 14 [Property, inheritance, expropriation] :
(1) Property and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed. Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws.
(2) Property entails obligations. Its use shall also serve the public good.
(3) Expropriation shall only be permissible for the public good. It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation. Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected. In case of dispute respecting the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.

By it’s spirit and intention, all this is good. But when it comes to relations between nations, one of which owns something that the other wants: may the latter than label itself as part of the public of the first? Is the latter an affected party?

Laws, that are mentioned in the three paragraphs, obviously are most essential, and their construction is most critical and a sensitive issue. Common sense says it is reasonable to say that what people usually have in their households is theirs. Is it also acceptable if laws are tailored to the needs of a lobby that is in possession of unquestioned influence, privileged access to power and superiority to do so (for example during a military occupation of foreign territory), and that forms a law that protects it’s rights to possess something inside that country – in violation of the principle that public interest must be considered, especially with regard to “public“ goods like oil? Often „privatization“ in the name of „free trade“, „liberty“ and „democracy“, turns into an expropriation of the people, legalized by laws violating the basic principles described above, and that were created with especially the unjustified interest of foreign companies from outside that nation. That way a nation can be taken over and controlled externally without needing to occupy that nation by military force. As seen with the oil ressources in Iraq, or the WTO’s and ICF’s policy towards third-world-countries. Increasingly this abuse of the instrument of de facto-expropriation takes place in Western nations as well there is a new law in the S since one year or so, that really is horrifying...). Here the duel is between private persons and companies or employers for the most, the argument is tax income for communities, or job creation, or traffic lines.

The West’s current dependence on the Middle East (oil) is most unlucky and the biggest strategical vulnerabilty of ours, it also is our moral dilemma that we cannot escape as long as we accept to depend on oil. Although we have selfish interests in gaining access to oil, this need of ours gives us no legal or moral rights per se. The mutual relation between OPEC countries and the Western consumer-nations is defined as a business relation only, it is not founded on ethical values that include any argument that it is morally correct for them to sell us their oil, or fopr us to demand that deal. And the deal can be ended by either side. This is a moral dilemma for the West, and as long as we do not end but even boost our dependence on oil we will never be able to meet the Middle East on morally correct grounds“. We have selfish interests there and thus can never act as a truly neutral side (and we never have, at least during the modern era). Since we do not have moral superiority to claim in this, we can only secure our access to oil by violating reason, and moral, of the status quo. If this is clever when considering the many substantial differrences and hostile animosities between Western and Muslim culture I dare to question.

With regard to my critical view on Islam and my complete rejection of it’s presence and further advance into the West I also want to point out another perspective. An end of the West’s dependence on oil from Muslim oil producers would also strip them off their financial income to push Islam’s expansion into the Christian West. This I score as something that would be very good for us. It also would have another side-effect that is good for Islamic societies themselves, because then it would create an opportunity where they would no longer have manna (petrodollars) falling from the sky, but would be in need to actually build the capabilities by themselves to host a modern society, that means investements (intellectually, financially) in economy structures, to found that: sciences, to found that: education, and all this could only be brought forward if the monopole of Islamic orthodoxy freezing the time since roughly one millenium is broken. They either would overcome it, necessarily giving up the totalitarian self-perception that – in their view - gives them a right to rule all world, or they would fall even deeper and end in an even weaker situation where they no longer could waste ressources to propagate Muslim expansion into the West, but must take care of their immediate needs, if they want to survive as a living society in their homeplaces that are not the West. If the first happens, okay with me, if the latter: my sympathy would be extremely limited. In both cases it would be good for us non-Muslims in the West. This would necessarily mean, that Islam no longer is Islam, but that it needs to strip off it’s rigid exo-skeleton of obsolete self-restrictions and it’s attempts to appear as beeing ethically en par with the West’s tradition by declaring it’s spiritual and ethical and social superiority, despite it’s obviousy deficits and inferiority.

We are not likely to do like that, instead we will give in to our craving for oil, and some nations exessively so. By that, we nurse and take care for the growing of exactly that ideological nemesis, that is growing by our petrodollars and our own lacking self-discipline, and sooner or latter it will be strong enough to swallow our societies and wipe out our own cultural history and tradition of values. Islam does not tolerate a second, if it is strong enough to submit it.

Not that we additionally don’t try hard all by ourselves to hollow out our own history of values, in the name of exessive materialism, corruption of those communal structures that should guard and represent the interests of the few AND the many, unregulated capitalism and total liberalization of trade. We do not stand on moral ground anymore that is solid enough to give us that strong stand we need if some of us want to lecture the rest of the world. But our ancestors nevertheless have laid that basis for such a solid fundament. We sold it away thoughtlessly - for „Money...!“ - Hallelujah!

Did you know that Henry Ford initially planned his first cars to run not by oil/fuel, but some alcohol-derivate? No joke, it’s true. Actually such cars are beeing build today, even heavy equipment like caterpillars etc. They also run with vegetable oil, sometimes. Poor Mr. Ford, it was the time of the prohibition in America, and thus it was considered to be a bad idea to make alcohol available in such immense quantities, to fuel engines in this new thing called „car“. If Ford would have had his way, the problems we have with oil today wouldn’t be there, and the relations to Islam also would be more in our favour, for it wouldn’t own oil as a security – the West‘s position would be less dependant, and thus stronger . And environmental pollution would be a whole different ball game, too. Back to the topic

1.2.2
Even >if< Iran’s self-supply with oil and gas may be secured over the longer future, it’s economy and industry cannot survive without exporting these ressources, because their export is Iran’s main financial income. The current relation between self-supply and export is roughly 50:50, this means it is by far not optimal for Iran. In other words: although it is an oil-rich country, Iran needs additional energy sources in fact, from it’s perspective this includes nuclear energy as well. For efficiency reasons, Iran is looking, like almost all Western industry nations, for a closed nuclear cycle (reprocessing plants).

It needs no further explanation, that the economical and thus political independence can only be acchieved by possessing such plants. Russia as energy guarantor? Or Aserbaidjhan? An immense risk!

1.2.3
The geostrategical importance of Iran is also known by Iran itself; that both East (China) and West are depending on it’s oil ressources either means Iran’s raise (if it is allowed to take profit from it’s ressources itself) or or it’s deep fall, if not it‘s complete ruin. The last alternative can only be avoided, if the country can resist to foreign pressure from outside. For that, a reliable (=basing on self-interest) protection by a third party, or an adequately strong deterrence is indispensible. Optimal would be both.

China would be the ideal partner for the first alternative, and indeed: with no other country Iran has enforced and strengthend it’ economical and political relation that much as with china in recent years. But China still is not strong enough to start a war for ressources with the US. Not yet.

So only the second alternative is left. Iran needs it’s own potential for deterrence. So, despite all opposing explanations, Iran has an objective and urgent need to have it’s nuclear bomb, it is indispensible for iran if it does not want to loose it’s ability to protect it’s most natural interests all by itself. Iran would be stupid, if it WOULD NOT draw this conclusion. Ergo...

A basic question to international politics: to what extent may „strong nations“ demand „weaker nations“ to act stupid and self-damaging?

1.2.4
One also must objectively recognize, that the strategical security status of Iran has aggrevated drastically. Iran not only imagines it is surrounded by US-dominated forces – it really is surrounded that way, as a matter of fact.
Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east, Iraq and Kuwait in the west. In the northeast the instabile Turkmenistan, in northwest the NATO-member Turkey with it’s own strong ambitions to gain regional hegemony; then a little bit or Armenia and Aserbaidjan, whose oil ressources already get workd on by western companies; in the south, beyond the Gulf, Saudi-Arabia, Katar, the UAE and Oman, with more or less military presence of the US.

Add to this the traditional animosity and hostility between Persians and the Arab majority of Islam, which is for historical reasons.

1.2.5
Even more: there are already two nuclear powers in the region, of whose raise noone made a big thing: Pakistan and Israel. Why should Iran/Persia, whose people is quite proud of it’s long history, accept that it is not judged by the same scale as these two nations?

A valid, but risky argument by author. It can serve as an excuse to allow ANY nation to gain access to WMDs. To prevent proliferation may seem to be a good thing, morally, but that as an argument to not allow nations to built nukes has it’s own inner contradiction, is always split-tongued and always will offer a wide flank open for attack based on the demand for treating nations by the same laws and scales of values.

1.2.6
And finally, despite economical cooperation (this may come as a surprise for some!), Israel and Iran, officially, regard each other as hostile enemies. Israel is a nuclear power and on a high technological niveau. Iran does not have anything that comes close to Israel’s capabilities. The mutual threat-relation currently is extremely asymmetrical. Concerning WMDs, Israel is a far bigger threat for Iran, than the other way around.

Which is a valid argument for Iran. And not wanting to change that status quo is a valid interest of Israel that can be understood. There is no superior reason or logic to judge and decide this thing by, one, that is beyond selfishness and self-interest, and declares one side as beeing right, and the other side as foolish. You have to recognize the validity of both interests, then. That means this war is not about right or wrong, good or evil, just or illegal. It only is about: who is the stronger one in this confrontation? Leave values, politics, religion out of this, they do ot decide this thing. The West will try to cripple Iran’s freedom of acting, because it thinks it has the ability to do so. That simple.
Eventually gaining more influence over the oil ressources and structures of inner-Iranian oil-business by that – who should have known that a weaker Iran may be forced to lower some of it’s restrictions in that field, if after a war it struggles to survive economically, eh? No one could have known that in advance...

1.3 Conclusions – And who is drawing them


1.3.1
Both side are claiming to have most vital and essential interests. But these interests are diametrically opposite. So...

So what...? The answers of the more powerful side, according to it’s own logic, can only be one: let’s bomb Iran!

1.3.2
The powerful side – that is the US and it’s vasalls (those NATO states that are willing to accept the american‘s/Israeli‘s logic, if by conviction, foolish mind or by pragmatism is of no matter; we can assume for sure that Britain again will enjoy to be the first to line up in the first row of battle order), and beside those „democratic“ friends there will also be followers in the war on terror, who are anything but democratic (so much for the ideals of the global American mission). And of course, Israel.

How will the first attack be started? The Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in summer 1981, when Iraq was said to have reached the same level of progress than Iran is said by the Israelis today, had been bombed by Israel in a solo run. The issue in Iran necessarily will be of higher callibre. The talk is of 30 installation that qualify as beeing a valid target in order to dismantle the Iranian nuclear program. But in sandbox games and according studies, as documented by James Fallows, the talk is of over 300 targets, of which at least 125 should be linked to the nuclear program – or that shall be storages for chemical or biological weapons.

should one conclude from that that we are at the point of the program where it is not only about a nuclear thread anymore, but a general biologcial and chemical thread as well? Let’s remember, now they will start to upgrade the iranian army and air defense to rank amongst the five strongest in the world. Then the first reports of most barbaric atrocities towards civilians and babies during the first Gulf war should start to drop in. Probably they use foreign babies for barbecue.
If you think you feel reminded of the talking before the Iraq war, then I hardly think that is accidental. Watch some recordings of the propaganda back then and replace the word „Iraq“ with „Iran“ – and you know where your deja-vu might come from. I just red an essay this morning, describing that in the initial stages of the Iraq war the CIA expressed time and again massive doubts over information given by the Israeli intel, and that the Pentagon also was very unhappy with the course set for war. I always have accused GWB to have abused and manipulated the CIA (which I never was that angry with during the events before the last Gulf war), and that Tennet probably was nothing more than a fall-guy (if he would have had format and backbone (and wits), he would have quit service long before the war started militarily, so I am not sad for him). Wolfowitz was said to have been enraged repeatedly by the obviously wrong and manipulative Israeli intel information that was triggering so much urgency, so was the foreign department very angry, too – but Bush believed it. We know how it ended: Bush wanted evidence for the lies he planned to give as reasons for the war, he did not order an objective search for evidence, but defined in advance what he demanded them to find - for some reason he wanted that war as much as the Israelis, although their reasons for wishing that might have been different; and so the great householder in the White House told the CIA to find his evidence that he needed so desperately, and when the CIA replied they could not find such evidence he ordered them to get him that evidence nevertheless (translates into: „if you can’t find evidence, then this does not mean that maybe there is no evidence because the situation is like that there cannot be anything suspiciously going on creating evidence, so I want you to artificially create the evidence for me, – where is the difference? It serves a good purpose – mine.“ Way to bypass a reality that did not fit into the plans. Later, the British-made desaster with that missile-warning-dossier excelled in this same tactical practise.). The missile-dossier. The Niger deal. The mobile bio-laboratories. Satellite images. Aerial images. High tech images. Other images. More images. The secret storage sites. The link to Al Quaeda. The involvement in 9/11. The nuclear program that was just months away to produce a nuclear warhead. A veil of powder sugar in the SC of the UN. – The same procedure as in every war, it already has started. My favourite PR operations were the reports on the Iraqis killing babies inside hospitals during the Kuwait invasion, the video from a fighter-bomber who shreddered a trainbridge in Kosovo and was said the pilot had no time to react to the train approaching because it was so dman fast (later it was found out that the video was played at 10x speed during the press confernece, well, train is train and bridge is bridge, don’t confuse your readers with different speeds settings, they are not used to work mentally...), and of course the heartwarming, tear-shedding wonderfull rescue of private Lynn (thank God, a woman, and a young and attractive one, too! That adds to the sympathy score for the brave rescuers: the Tarzan&Jayne-factor) during the war 2003 (thank God that two camera teams were near that place and at the right time, by chance, of course. The army does Hollywood proud!) Where as this time the British intel so far only says cautiously, that maybe in the middle of the next decade Iran may be ready to produce a nuclear warhead, it is again the Israelis pressing every gas pedal they can reach in order to start this war as soon as possible – this time they say, that Iran is just four months away from constructing the bomb. That means begin of hostilities in late April. Big PR stunt! Fear in the faces, the audience does not dare to applaude! The directors of psychological warfare against their own population at home surely had enough opportunities since CCN in Baghdad 1991 to learn to master their job with blindfolded eyes. A feeling of immediate urgency, and the feeling of fear are the keys in which their partitions are written. They play on the public’s emotions like a musician plays an organ. Hope you have a sense for music. If you still have doubts on how badly we need to get rid of Iran, probably not. Which might serve you well in this, probably. If you are deaf, you are also immune to some of the rethoric.

1.3.3
Not that Israel couldn’t run such a huge operation all by itself, without doubt it would be able to execute even bigger efforts than this. But: it would be unreasonable by them to expose themselves exclusvely to possible iranian retaliation (or general Arab anger and terror that both would be strengthened by this operation). So one can expect that the US will be participating from the very beginning, and maybe or probably will run the opening strikes even all by themselves again.


2. WAR! – AND QUICKLY, PLEASE!


2.1
All the reasons that are described so far are reasons for an attack as soon as possible. The reasons of 1.1 anyway, but also some of the reasons that from an iranian perspective speak for an increased Iranian effort to gain nuclear weapons as fast as possible. For example the geo-strategical argument in 1.2.3 At the same time, the Iranian reason to speed up their program are reasons for the West to speed up the war. And vice versa. A situation of mutual reinforcement

If a country already possesses WMDs, the risk for an attacker cannot be calculated any longer, the country thus becomes immune to foreign threats and pressure. Attacking it is no longer an option (f.e. Northkorea). Ergo...

2.2
But when will Iran possess WMDs, if their ability to gain them is not blocked? Opinions on this differ significantly. Some say it still could last several years. British sources agree on that, vaguely mentioning around ten years of time. The conservative Washington Post from 02. August 2008 also talked of the middle of the next decade. Other sources, especially Israeli sources (for example the chief of the Mossad, as quoted by German magazine „Der Spiegel“ from 6th January 2006), and sources that are tied to Israel or sympathize with Israeli interests, don’t talk of years, but months only. Four months from now on, they say.

Which is completely absurd and idiotic, imo, for three reasons: first, if they would have been so short of finishing their task, they wouldn’t have agreed to seal their installations and let work rest for that ammount of time. When they agree to do that the Western military preparations were not finsihed and probably wouldn’t have made up the time they lagged behind until the iranians were done. And second, they have started to brake the seals just days ago, and still not all installations are runnig again, while I write this, it takes time to prepare such huge plants and installation and bring them back to normal perational level again. And when that is done – the first point I mentioned here still would speak against an iranian finsih that soon. In a past topic I estimated 12-15 years, and recently I corrected that to around 8-10 years or so, and somehow I think that is a good answer to bet money on. So I see no reason or excuse for the growing hysteria with Iran currently, and a military strike this or next year. And third: if they really would have been only months away last autumn, there would have been no need for the europeans to negotiate with them again, for they wouldn’T have had someone willing to talk to them – for the Israelis already would have attacked them with or without the US, no matter what the UN-SC had said. - Concerning Ahmadinejad – let him yell, let him talk, he is a little man that now feels big, he adresses those people in his society of whom he expects they will vote him again, I don’t expect him to stay in power for the next 10 years. Wanting a big club right now, and eventually getting one in ten years are two separate things, for the forseeable future.

[Skybird]

3. PREPARATION FOR WAR


War, like almost every activity, has two sides, a mental-psychological one, and a physical one. This also is valid for the preparations in order to go to war.

For the war against Iran, such preparations already seem to have made substantial progress, and the material ones seem to have been completed since mid-2005. The mental preparations seem to gain momentum increasingly. What still is left to be accomplished, seems to operate all by itself.


3.1 The hardware for war


3.1.1
The American forces have shown increasing weaknesses in the field of personell, that as a consequence of the iraq war became more and more obvious (not sufficiently high personell levels of ground troops on a global scale, a growing lack of new recruits – it has become known in America that „warrior“ is not the same job as „car mechanic“, and that you can die when beeing a soldier, while the probability of being send to war indeed when joining the armed forces is growing and much higher than in any other Western army). But still the destruction potential of the American forces (due to it’s superior weapons and communication/sensor/intel technology is higher than that of the next 10 or even 20 nations altogether. A few buttons pressed on a laptop in Nebraska, and Iran – refering to an old proverb from earlier American threats – would be bombed back into the stoneage. Even Israel with it’s approximately 200 nuclear warheads would be able to produce such a timeshift all by itself without technological problems.

But this is not the goal. At least not yet. Currently and officially it still is about only blocking a developement towards an Iranian nuclear industry that at least potentially could eventually result in the creation of nuclear weapons.

The day I write this (Sunday)I saw a TV report with an interview of Bill Clinton, who clearly said that the US is lacking the ability and the manpower in groundtroops to conduct two major ground operations of the size of Iraq mission simultaneously. Now this sounds very different than what Colin Powell said before Iraq, where he cautioned Northkorea not to take advantage of the situation, saying that noone should be in doubt that the US could wage two full-scale major wars on the globe simultaneously (what I never believed). During Gulf war 91 the airforce was in danger of running out of ammo, and fighter wings from all over the world had been sent to the Gulf completely, or had to send reinforcements, weakening their contingents in other parts of the world. Numbers of smart ammunition are said to have been increased in stockpiles since they prooved their effectiveness in 91, nevertheless such talking like that of Powell back then is an attempt of intimidating any potential rival to try to gain an advantage while the US is bound in a major military effort elsewhere. Many armies in the past had lived by their nimbus of invincibility, which boosted their effectiveness in battle, and scared their potential enemies. Once this nimbus was destroyed, or at least in doubt, their enemies found it a bit easier to take on them. However, while Iraqi and Afghan operations bind American groundforces to a level that the US currently cannot conduct major ground operations in a third theatre without serious limitations, this certainly is not true for their major weapon: the Air Force, and to a major degree for the Navy as well. These parts of the armed forces alone are currently not intensily bound anywhere and could concentrate their major combat potential on iran. Since a ground invasion of Iran I would label as beeing completely insane even with a fully available ground army (Iran is roughly 3.5 times as big as Iraq, has a population more than double in size than that of Iraq, and it has plenty of much more rugged and mountainous and unreal terrain (I have seen quite a bit of it, I was there), and it has a far bigger population that sees no need to get freed of any dictator and thus hardly will take even a neutral stand towards foreign invaders), the earliest plans for a war against Iran probably always have been limited to an intense air campaign exclusively. And this would not be hindered by operations in Iraq. I expect to see something like during Kosovo, or during the first six weeks in Desert Storm. Not only the nuclear sites will be attacked, but the air defense system as well. And targets of opportunity, however they will be defined and authorized by political opportunism. If even massive conventional air strikes will be able to destroy especially those deeply fortified installations that were built deep inside massive mountains and whose exact coordinates are unknown (as far as the public is informed on intel efforts), I – and not just a few more competent experts on the theme as well - have my doubts, and always have said so. I think there are some target areas than cannot be disabled without using at least small nuclear warheads. This is just my personal evaluation, I don’t say that I wish for their use. So I think if yo don’t use nukes, you cannot stop their program, only hindering it, making them having to do some of their work a second time, pushing them back a little, and winning time by that. A final solution, that is different from an Iran having nuclear weapons, an aerial strike on Iran is not. I also wonder if both the US and the West in general could deal with the consequences of a robust strike against Iran. Consequences mean: increased efforts to launch mega-terror in western cities, increased violance against Israel, increasing kidnapping of aid workers all over the globe, increased determination and growing numbers of terrorists in Iraq, increased sympathy for Taleban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a reaction by oil-producing Arab countries that cannot be calculated and that noone expected, growing economical costs due to raising oil prices, and... and... and... the list is endless. Economically we already have lost the war on terror. Our total costs for additional countermeasures since 9/11 lead into the trillions and trillions, including costs for (just a loose list of examples) military operation, security measures on local company level, additional measures taken by transportation, airline delays due to alarms and longer check-in procedures, additional equipement to be installed in companies, computer and software upgrades for sensitive public installations, upgrades for airplanes, busses, trains that should help to lower their vulnerability to whatver kind of a strike, overtime hours for police and personell in directly involved branches that need to be payed for, and... and... and... Bin Laden only needed some thousand dollars, probably. Economically, terrorism cannot be defeated. It beats you on the basis of one billion to one or more. And Islamic terrorist even do not need to pay the assassins.

3.1.2
Major and important parts of Iran’s nuclear industry lie deep under the earth. To hit such targets, you need special weapons. These do exsist, prototypes of such bunker-buster-bombs (BBB) already had been tested during Afghanistan, and tremendously improved in Iraq. In the first half of 2005 Israel hsould have received around 500 of such bombs. These bombs can be queipped with conventional explosives as well as with nuclear warheads. The nuclear version are needed for if one really wants to destroy targets that are hidden deeper under the earth. And this one probably will need to want. These so-called „mini-nukes“ are labelled as tactical weapons (taktische Gefechtsfeldwaffen), to allow there use by terminological means. Michel Chossudovsky speaks plain English: Nuclear war against Iran:

Nuclear War against Iran
By Michel Chossudovsky
January 3, 2006

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. Israeli policymakers believe that their threats may influence the report, or at least force the kind of ambiguities, which can be exploited by its overseas supporters to promote Security Council sanctions or justify Israeli military action.
(James Petras, Israel's War Deadline: Iran in the Crosshairs, Global Research, December 2005)
The US sponsored military plan has been endorsed by NATO, although it is unclear, at this stage, as to the nature of NATO's involvement in the planned aerial attacks.
"Shock and Awe"
The various components of the military operation are firmly under US Command, coordinated by the Pentagon and US Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska.
The actions announced by Israel would be carried out in close coordination with the Pentagon. The command structure of the operation is centralized and ultimately Washington will decide when to launch the military operation.
US military sources have confirmed that an aerial attack on Iran would 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. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted.
Military planners could tailor their target list to reflect the preferences of the Administration by having limited air strikes that would target only the most crucial facilities ... or the United States could opt for a far more comprehensive set of strikes against a comprehensive range of WMD related targets, as well as conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq

(See Globalsecurity.org at http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...an-strikes.htm
In November, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy".
Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness (See our analysis below)
While Asian press reports stated that the "fictitious enemy" in the Global Lightening exercise was North Korea, the timing of the exercises, suggests that they were conducted in anticipation of a planned attack on Iran.
Consensus for Nuclear War
No dissenting political voices have emerged from within the European Union.
There are ongoing consultations between Washington, Paris and Berlin. Contrary to the invasion of Iraq, which was opposed at the diplomatic level by France and Germany, Washington has been building "a consensus" both within the Atlantic Alliance and the UN Security Council. This consensus pertains to the conduct of a nuclear war, which could potentially affect a large part of the Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, a number of frontline Arab states are now tacit partners in the US/ Israeli military project. A year ago in November 2004, Israel's top military brass met at NATO headquarters in Brussels with their counterparts from six members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. A NATO-Israel protocol was signed. Following these meetings, joint military exercises were held off the coast of Syria involving the US, Israel and Turkey. and in February 2005, Israel participated in military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
The media in chorus has unequivocally pointed to Iran as a "threat to World Peace".
The antiwar movement has swallowed the media lies. The fact that the US and Israel are planning a Middle East nuclear holocaust is not part of the antiwar/ anti- globalization agenda.
The "surgical strikes" are presented to world public opinion as a means to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
We are told that this is not a war but a military peace-keeping operation, in the form of aerial attacks directed against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Mini-nukes: "Safe for Civilians"
The press reports, while revealing certain features of the military agenda, largely serve to distort the broader nature of the military operation, which contemplates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons.
The war agenda is based on the Bush administration's doctrine of "preemptive" nuclear war under the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review.
Media disinformation has been used extensively to conceal the devastating consequences of military action involving nuclear warheads against Iran. The fact that these surgical strikes would be carried out using both conventional and nuclear weapons is not an object of debate.
According to a 2003 Senate decision, the new generation of tactical nuclear weapons or "low yield" "mini-nukes", with an explosive capacity of up to 6 times a Hiroshima bomb, are now considered "safe for civilians" because the explosion is underground.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclear scientists, the mini-nukes are being presented as an instrument of peace rather than war. The low-yield nukes have now been cleared for "battlefield use", they are slated to be used 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, 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)
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peace and preventing "collateral damage". The Pentagon has intimated, in this regard, that the ‘mini-nukes’ (with a yield of less than 5000 tons) are harmless to civilians because the explosions ‘take place under ground’. Each of these ‘mini-nukes’, nonetheless, constitutes – in terms of explosion and potential radioactive fallout – a significant fraction of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Estimates of yield for Nagasaki and Hiroshima indicate that they were respectively of 21000 and 15000 tons ( http://www.warbirdforum.com/hiroshim.htm

In other words, the low yielding mini-nukes have an explosive capacity of one third of a Hiroshima bomb.
Mini-Nukes

The earth-penetrating capability of the [nuclear] B61-11 is fairly limited, however. Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. Even so, by burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to ground shock compared to a surface bursts. Any attempt to use it in an urban environment, however, would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/images/...ages/gbu28.jpg

Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
The new definition of a nuclear warhead has blurred the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons:
'It's a package (of nuclear and conventional weapons). The implication of this obviously is that nuclear weapons are being brought down from a special category of being a last resort, or sort of the ultimate weapon, to being just another tool in the toolbox,' said Kristensen. (Japan Economic News Wire, op cit)
We are a dangerous crossroads: military planners believe their own propaganda.
The military manuals state that this new generation of nuclear weapons are "safe" for use in the battlefield. They are no longer a weapon of last resort. There are no impediments or political obstacles to their use. In this context, Senator Edward Kennedy has accused the Bush Administration for having developed "a generation of more useable nuclear weapons."
The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of World Peace.
"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
But nuclear holocausts are not front page news! In the words of Mordechai Vanunu,
The Israeli government is preparing to use nuclear weapons in its next war with the Islamic world. Here where I live, people often talk of the Holocaust. But each and every nuclear bomb is a Holocaust in itself. It can kill, devastate cities, destroy entire peoples. (See interview with Mordechai Vanunu, December 2005).
Space and Earth Attack Command Unit
A preemptive nuclear attack using tactical nuclear weapons would be coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with US and coalition command units in the Persian Gulf, the Diego Garcia military base, Israel and Turkey.
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.... "
In January 2005, at the outset of the military 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."

To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike, or JFCCSGS was created.
JFCCSGS has the mandate to oversee the launching of a nuclear attack in accordance with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, approved by the US Congress in 2002. The NPR underscores the pre-emptive use of nuclear warheads not only against "rogue states" but also against China and Russia.
Since November, JFCCSGS is said to be in "an advance state of readiness" following the conduct of relevant military exercises. The announcement was made in early December by U.S. Strategic Command to the effect that the command unit had achieved "an operational capability for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons." The exercises conducted in November used "a fictional country believed to represent North Korea" (see David Ruppe, 2 December 2005):
"The new unit [JFCCSGS] has 'met requirements necessary to declare an initial operational capability' as of Nov. 18. A week before this announcement, the unit finished a command-post exercise, dubbed Global Lightening, which was linked with another exercise, called Vigilant Shield, conducted by the North American Aerospace Defend Command, or NORAD, in charge of missile defense for North America.
'After assuming several new missions in 2002, U.S. Strategic Command was reorganized to create better cooperation and cross-functional awareness,' said Navy Capt. James Graybeal, a chief spokesperson for STRATCOM. 'By May of this year, the JFCCSGS has published a concept of operations and began to develop its day-to-day operational requirements and integrated planning process.'
'The command's performance during Global Lightning demonstrated its preparedness to execute its mission of proving integrated space and global strike capabilities to deter and dissuade aggressors and when directed, defeat adversaries through decisive joint global effects in support of STRATCOM,' he added without elaborating about 'new missions' of the new command unit that has around 250 personnel.
Nuclear specialists and governmental sources pointed out that one of its main missions would be to implement the 2001 nuclear strategy that includes an option of preemptive nuclear attacks on 'rogue states' with WMDs. (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005)

CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022
JFCCSGS is in an advanced state of readiness to trigger nuclear attacks directed against Iran or North Korea.
The operational implementation of the Global Strike is called CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022. The latter is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Ibid).
CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'
'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.'(According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit)
The mission of JFCCSGS is to implement CONPLAN 8022, in other words to trigger a nuclear war with Iran.
The Commander in Chief, namely George W. Bush would instruct the Secretary of Defense, who would then instruct the Joint Chiefs of staff to activate CONPLAN 8022.
CONPLAN is distinct from other military operations. it does not contemplate the deployment of ground troops.
CONPLAN 8022 is different from other war plans in that it posits a small-scale operation and no "boots on the ground." The typical war plan encompasses an amalgam of forces -- air, ground, sea -- and takes into account the logistics and political dimensions needed to sustain those forces in protracted operations.... The global strike plan is offensive, triggered by the perception of an imminent threat and carried out by presidential order.) (William Arkin, Washington Post, May 2005)

The Role of Israel
Since late 2004, Israel has been stockpiling US made conventional and nuclear weapons systems in anticipation of an attack on Iran. This stockpiling which is financed by US military aid was largely completed in June 2005. Israel has taken delivery from the US of several thousand "smart air launched weapons" including some 500 'bunker-buster bombs, which can also be used to deliver tactical nuclear bombs.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113, 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_n...ofn=jf03norris ) .
Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

Late April 2005. Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs:

Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as "a warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."
The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as "a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive explosions.
The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the GBU-28s on their F-15 aircraft.

(See text of DSCA news release at http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressRelease..._corrected.pdf
Extension of the War
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in Iraq and Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
At present there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The air strikes against Iran could contribute to unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.
Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a factor, following last year's agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
More recently, Tehran has beefed up its air defenses through the acquisition of Russian 29 Tor M-1 anti-missile systems. In October, with Moscow`s collaboration, "a Russian rocket lifted an Iranian spy satellite, the Sinah-1, into orbit." (see Chris Floyd)
The Sinah-1 is just the first of several Iranian satellites set for Russian launches in the coming months.
Thus the Iranians will soon have a satellite network in place to give them early warning of an Israeli attack, although it will still be a pale echo of the far more powerful Israeli and American space spies that can track the slightest movement of a Tehran mullah’s beard. What’s more, late last month Russia signed a $1 billion contract to sell Iran an advanced defense system that can destroy guided missiles and laser-guided bombs, the Sunday Times reports. This too will be ready in the next few months. (op.cit.)

Ground War
While a ground war is not envisaged under CONPLAN, the aerial bombings could lead through the process of escalation into a ground war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Lebanon and Syria.
In recent developments, Israel plans to conduct military exercises as well as deploy Special Forces in the mountainous areas of Turkey bordering Iran and Syria with the collaboration of the Ankara government:
Ankara and Tel Aviv have come to an agreement on allowing the Israeli army to carry out military exercises in the mountainous areas [in Turkey] that border Iran.
[According to] ... a UAE newspaper ..., according to the agreement reached by the Joint Chief of Staff of the Israeli army, Dan Halutz, and Turkish officials, Israel is to carry out various military manoeuvres in the areas that border Iran and Syria. [Punctuation as published here and throughout.] [Dan Halutz] had gone to Turkey a few days earlier.
Citing certain sources without naming them, the UAE daily goes on to stress: The Israeli side made the request to carry out the manoeuvres because of the difficulty of passage in the mountain terrains close to Iran's borders in winter.
The two Hakari [phonetic; not traced] and Bulo [phonetic; not traced] units are to take part in the manoeuvres that have not been scheduled yet. The units are the most important of Israel's special military units and are charged with fighting terrorism and carrying out guerrilla warfare.
Earlier Turkey had agreed to Israeli pilots being trained in the area bordering Iran. The news [of the agreement] is released at a time when Turkish officials are trying to evade the accusation of cooperating with America in espionage operations against its neighbouring countries Syria and Iran. Since last week the Arab press has been publishing various reports about Ankara's readiness or, at least, agreement in principle to carry out negotiations about its soil and air space being used for action against Iran.
(E'temad website, Tehran, in Persian 28 Dec 05, BBC Monitoring Services Translation)

Concluding remarks
The implications are overwhelming.
The so-called international community has accepted the eventuality of a nuclear holocaust.
Those who decide have swallowed their own war propaganda.
A political consensus has developed in Western Europe and North America regarding the aerial attacks using tactical nuclear weapons, without considering their devastating implications.
This profit driven military adventure ultimately threatens the future of humanity.
What is needed in the months ahead is a major thrust, nationally and internationally which breaks the conspiracy of silence, which acknowledges the dangers, which brings this war project to the forefront of political debate and media attentiion, at all levels, which confronts and requires political and military leaders to take a firm stance against the US sponsored nuclear war.
Ultimately what is required are extensive international sanctions directed against the United States of America and Israel.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller "The Globalization of Poverty " published in eleven languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at www.globalresearch.ca . He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His most recent book is entitled: America’s "War on Terrorism", Global Research, 2005.

Related article: Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, by Michel Chossudovsky

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2006

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintAr...articleId=1714

3.1.3
The Iran war promises us a reprise of the Iraq war of Bush senior (91), or the NATO war against Jugoslawia (Kosovo war). A dedicated air war with a series of precise „surgical strikes“. So: a „clean war“, thanks God, not a single attacker will need to put a foot on Iranian soil. Deaths? Of course some collateral deaths –but these are no dead people of ours.

Due to it’s close location to the sea, I could imagine that Busher is considered to be a target for limited invasion on land as well, infiltration by special forces, for example, Navy operations or such. If the campaign plan will be in need of such adventure is something different.
Quite honestly I have no idea to what degree special forces will infiltrate Iran by air drop or on ground, to identify and paint targest or gain target data, for example on the many onknown coordinates that are needed for precise bombing. And as always, the public will not know much more afterwards. It is known that specials were operating in Afghanistan long before the war began, and for a long while afterwards (even German special forces are in place again currently, due to the increasing threat level there), special forces were operating in Kosovo (with limited success, it seems to me: 90% of tanks that were hit were dummies), in Kuwait 91.
And not forget the intelligence communities. Many foreign agencies must have agents on the ground inside Iran.

3.2 The software for war. Component 1: war strategy


3.2.1
The strategical concept behind the Iran-war correspond to the reasons of war as described under 1.1 . the generic blueprint of it all is again the New Security Strategy NSS (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf ), that has been developed long before 9/11, but in that event’s shadow officially had been activated and declared as official policy. It’s first implementation it saw in Iraq 2003. This explains the doggedness, with which one defended the offical reason for war („Iraq secretly developes nuclear wepaons“).

3.2.2
The central objective of this strategy:

„Prevent our enemies from threatening us, our Allies,, and our freinds with WMDs“.

Please read precisely: according to this strategy not only the use of WMD by an enemy shall be prevented, no: even the threat of an enemy saying that he maybe could use WMD must be prevented, which gets stated more precisely in that strategy paper as that even the simple ability to eventually, maybe, possibly claim such a threat is regarded as a casus belli for the US.

3.2.3
Iran’s nuclear policy is such a case. And it is like that completely independetly from wether Iran really seeks to gain nuclear weapons or not. Evidence for that we still do not have, but as indicated under 1.2.2 ff, Iran probably is not stupid.

3.2.4
This strategy delivers any strategist, who proclaims his right to use preemptive attacks , the needed justification, that for him (this strategist) has one most fundamental advantage: heart and core of this recipe for going to war are unproven assertions based on eventual possebilities that lies in the future. That these possebilities are likely to manifest must not be proven. Such assertions of possebilities cannot be countered, they strike by arguments that are highly hypothetical, but nevertheless it is impossible to defend against them. Even if you cut off all tentacles of an octopus – there still might be the possebility that he build new ones... The only truly safe way to prevent any possebility of developement and freedom of action for someone else so that he eventually, maybe, possibly will find means to act in oppostion to your own intentions is to completely deny him any freedom of decision, any freedom of acting, to make him subject of total control by oneself. Total submission. The New Security Strategy only means this: America’s claim for total, complete, unrestricted world domination and global ruling. This claim should be pushed through again in the Iran war.

In another essay the author is saying the following about such stategists: „One of their most intelligent characteristics is, that occasionally they let a stupid, or someone who skillfully plays the stupid, get elected as president. Ergo: to sneer at such a president is no sign of intelligence in itself.

Skybird should have known that long time earlier!

3.3 The software of war. Component 2: presentation of war


3.3.1
The countdown for war is running. But the countdown for war already is part of that war, maybe even it’s most important part. Ergo: the Iran war already has started. All other elemtns of that countdown are parts of the psychological warfare.

3.3.2
the only thing that - despite the needed process of propagating the indispensible need of this war – could cause a temporary postponement of the bombardement is this: currnetly the US still needs the iran to a certain degree to stablize relations to the Shia in Iraq. If Iran, for whatveer the reason may be, is no longer needed, then... then at the latest. But this postponement allows some more time for preparations that nevertheless will be made use of – not now, but some time later.

3.3.3
Tthe most important goal of this phase of the war is to maximize the public acceptance of the war, both with people at home and with people of the aliied nations. And for this maximizing effect an impression must be created that no attempt of good will was not tried, and that nothing had been left out to try to prevent this war. The maximizing of acceptance needs to acchieve that people can no longer escape to necessarily think that now war definetly is the ‚ultima ratio‘. The starting signal, as always, is this: „there is no alternative“.

3.3.4
What does this mean for you, dear reader? It measn this:

From now on be extremely skeptical on all war reports you may read, watch, hear – no matter who is doing them, no matter from what direction they are coming from.

Keep your critical distance (not possible without training!)

Stay away fro every kind of war hysteria. What especially means this:

Switch off all dramatic TV-war-productions.

Better get a history book, or at least video footage of the time before the beginning of the Iraq war, March 2003. If medias really would be about educating and informing you, they would remind you of these all by themselves – but they don’t.

Compare the lies back then to the imploring sermons you hear today and tomorrow.

If you think you already heared all those statements they make before, simply assume the opposite of their content. You will be surprised, but only in the beginning. After some weeks you won’t be surprised anymore at all.

3.3.5
Will it show that we have learned something about his new war from the last wars? Probably almost nothing.

Else we would know, approximately, what we should expect. It doesn’t need a rocket scientist to predict that the forplay for this war will follow the same rules the last war followed.

I. Threatening with bringing the issue to the security council, checking in how far this causes favoured results. Open and hidden manipulation of the members of the SC. (For the interested public now the most exciting question is: will there be a Veto or not? Bets are made. I would bet: China will refuse to comply.(see 1.2.3)

II. Many and many repetitions of step I.

III. bringing it to the Sc for real, if acceptance appears to be probable. First – vague – resolution.

IV. eventually repeating step III. with sharper text in resolution.
.....a.) threatening of sanctions (imposing of sanctions)
.....b.) Imposing of an ultimatum (with conditions that guarantee that they cannot/will
...........not be met)
.....c.) final goal: legitimation for an „intervention“.

V. In case of a Veto in III. or IV.: launching attack nevertheless – additonally: self-authorization by proclaiming a extraordinary state of national emergency (-> „übergesetzlicher Notstand“).

Medias enjoy the highest quotes in the time before a possible war (clever journalists write their articles already now, in advance). Golden rule to produce suspense and ecxitement during nthis time: focussing on the question: „When will the game kick off?“

Tension will be enforced and maximoized until the audience almost feels dissapointed if the game does not start.

You think that is cynical? No. It has been exactly that way in February/March 2003.The script was perfect. And even if the puiblic has not learned about this script – the scriptwriters have, be sure, and they will have refined their art meanwhile. And as always, the medias will give their best again.


EPILOGUE

Most contemporary people, who still do not want to believe in the Iran war, are convionced, that the US cannot afford such a war due to the desaster in Iraq. But this argument has extreme weaknesses:

America’s war-ressouces are by far not exhausted. Especially the most powerful components, those fighting components for a true and exclusive aerial war, are currently not working to capacity.

Bush, Cheney and others like them still bet their money on our willingness to believe in the final „Endsieg!“ in Iraq, and what they call „war on terror“.

But this Endsieg, so they mayke the public suppose, cannot be realized without preventing Iranian nuclear weapons. Ergo...

Neither the financial costs of the Iraq war (latest analysis by economical experts said they are topping 2 TRILLION (!!!) dollars, as reported in the Washington Times and other major medias in the US), nor the humanitarian cost of this war...

Iraq, January 2006: 31.000 civilians killed, approaching 1900 servicemen killed, not to mention the thousnads of physically wounded, the tens of thousands of soldiers who are suffering post-traumatic stress syndrom and other major and severe psychological problems (nd many of them will be off the rail for the rest of their lifes) – and not to mention the incalculable trauma many individuals of the Iraqi people are sufferung from

... seem to worry the US administration. What they are worried of is their decline in popularity. What the best remedy for that could be, is crystal-clear – a new war (for distraction, and boolstering emotions and unity.)

Such a new war also is needed to restore the military credibility of the American superpower again. The Iraq desaster must be patched up. Especially with regard to other Muslim nations.

Ergo, what has been said before Iraq, is still valid today: next station – Iran.

Hallelujah...!

Prof. Meggle is teaches philosophy in Leipzig. Center of his work is terrorism and the collective pressure of decision-making processes.

[CCIP]

I would really like to see your analysis of how the war will go. I'm really quite interested in the perspectives of that.

Personally, I've no doubt that an air war could be conducted with few problems against Iran. But any possibility of a ground war there boggles my mind, and I've always written it off as "insane". Possible? What do you think?

[Gizzmoe]

Originally Posted by CCIP

But any possibility of a ground war there boggles my mind, and I've always written it off as "insane". Possible? What do you think?

Iran is almost four times the size of Iraq and has 2.5 times the population. Yes, it would be insane!

[Bort]

There's more?!

[Skybird]

SEcond half is completed. Look for it above.

text can be downloaded as doc-file for easeir reading.

http://people.freenet.de/Skybird/BOI.doc

That's all. Nothing more to come.

I just want to point you to that long article I linked and quoted by Michel Chossudovsky. In that text, amongst many other details, it is said, that during an attack on Iran, Iran's reaction could be to invade Iraq and confront coalition troops there in strength. Now has anyone ever considered that scenario? I admit: i completely oversaw this one.

[sonar732]

I see you've made up for lost time Skybird... :rotfl: :rotfl:

[retired1212]

Can you please send me that in audio tape. Lectures are always helpful for me to sleep

[Sixpack]

My day has 24 hours. Skybird 72 ??

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In that text, amongst many other details, it is said, that during an attack on Iran, Iran's reaction could be to invade Iraq and confront coalition troops there in strength. Now has anyone ever considered that scenario? I admit: i completely oversaw this one.

Heck, an Iranian invasion of Iraq might be the best bet to unify Iraqis in a common cause and fight Iran. :hmm:

[Sixpack]

I predicted already years ago the ****s from Iraq and Iran will unite, be it by force or out of sheer mutual and genuine devotion for Allah

[XabbaRus]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Heck, an Iranian invasion of Iraq might be the best bet to unify Iraqis in a common cause and fight Iran. :hmm:

Maybe that's the plan......

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

Heck, an Iranian invasion of Iraq might be the best bet to unify Iraqis in a common cause and fight Iran. :hmm:

So sure on that? At least both Shia groups may unite, while the Sunnis may keep away and fight them both. Kurds of course would concentrate on what they consider to be "their" part of the Iraqi territory, any additional war can only help them to tighten their claims and control of the oil fields at Khirkuk.
Iran alraedy plays a very significant role in Iraq and has established a profound ammount of infleunce on things there. I can't imagine both Shia groups go fighting each other again like in the war with Iraq after Khomeini's comeback.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by sonar732

I see you've made up for lost time Skybird... :rotfl: :rotfl:

Yes

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So sure on that? At least both Shia groups may unite, while the Sunnis may keep away and fight them both. Kurds of course would concentrate on what they consider to be "their" part of the Iraqi territory, any additional war can only help them to tighten their claims and control of the oil fields at Khirkuk.
Iran alraedy plays a very significant role in Iraq and has established a profound ammount of infleunce on things there. I can't imagine both Shia groups go fighting each other again like in the war with Iraq after Khomeini's comeback.

I used the word might for the simple reason that I wasn't even close to sure. But regarding this I share a similar viewpoint to yours mentioned above.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/might

Might (2): 1.b. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may