Post by unknownPost by lo yeeOnI think in fact that McCain is himself crazy by encouraging another
war against Iran. I can't imagine that the Iranian people would not
react just as angrily as the Iraqi people toward us and that the world
would not be further inflamed by our hegemonic and heartless attitude
toward people other than Americans and Israelis.
What if the UN security Council approved sanctions against
Iran. Would you think them all to be insane?
And if they subsequently approve military action?
What those governments at the UNSC will do have a lot to do with US
pressure. For instance, it has been said that if US does go ahead and
attack Iran, neither Russia nor China will stand in the way. That has
nothing to do with whether they like it or not. It has to do with the
more pragmatic view of not getting themselves attacked by the US also.
I don't know if their strategy is good or not. But i do know that if
they all vote for the US-pushed sanction regime against Iran, it shows
not that they are insane. To the contrary, it shows they are just
being rational. Who want to get their own people killed? Only people
like our Senators who continue to support the Iraq war and are goading
Bush to attack Iran are the politicians who could not care less about
getting their own people killed. In this case, it is our brothers,
fathers, and sons who fight for the neocons' interests in Iraq whom
our Senators couldn't care less about if they get killed and continue
to get killed.
If Bush were to go to war against Iran and these Senators were to
support him, they are insane because it is not in the interests of
the American people!
lo yeeOn
========
Subject: Chossudovsky on USA-Israeli Plans to Attack Iran
Center for Research on Globalization - May 1, 2005
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a
bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the
top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so
to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and
without us putting pressure on them "to do it":
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being
asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective
is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first,
and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess
afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)
Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to
attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National
Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with
some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's
behalf and "do it" for us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not
tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a
strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the
Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a
justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."
The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel".
What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb
Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The
Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working
assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts,
carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )
Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, without a
green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not implement an
attack without the participation of the US.
Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran
Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in covert
intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British intelligence and
special forces (working with their Israeli counterparts) are involved in
this operation.
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign against Iran would
not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will use different
tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'"
(Evening Standard, 17 June 2003,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )
The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear
facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in favor
of the US. (See Arab Monitor,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).
Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will unseat the
Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of social forces
inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians will consistently
rally behind a wartime government against foreign aggression. In fact, the
entire Middle East and beyond would rise up against US interventionism.
Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack
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 the Persian Gulf, which
would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out
war.
In other words, 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 an
agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.
In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully weigh the
far-reaching implications of their actions.
Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware
A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation for a
possible attack on Iran.
Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 "smart air
launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster bombs. The
(uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than "adequate to address the
full range of Iranian targets, with the possible exception of the buried
facility at Natanz, which may require the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker
buster ":
~ "Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, this increase
in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or without further US
involvement." (See Richard Bennett,
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )
The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr using
US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack would be carried
out in three separate waves "with the radar and communications jamming
protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in
the area". (See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to deliver
tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the
"conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the
conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .
According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for
civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )
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
Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader war, but also of
nuclear radiation over a wide area:
"To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, but it could
also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and the borders of
Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet Network, Federal News
Service, 1 March 2005)
Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive air
strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most probably extend
to other targets.
While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the level of
military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a an effective
ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of former National
Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:
"We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we get into
that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in Washington is
seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National Journal, 4 December
2004).
Iran's Military Capabilities
Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, Iran has an
advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear sites; "they
are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes difficult and
without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 April 2005). It has
upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach targets in Israel. Iran's
armed forces have recently conducted high-profile military exercises in
anticipation of a US led attack. Iran also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic
cruise missiles, produced by the Ukraine. Iran's air defense systems is
said to feature Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7
missiles (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies).
The US "Military Road Map"
The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next
stage of ?the road map to war?.
Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests
of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial
establishment and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of
the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% of the
world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the
size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of
global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )
The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is part of
the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, US Central
Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to invade both
Iraq and Iran:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National
Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central
Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of
dual containment of the rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those
states pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other states in the region, and
to their own citizens. Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance
of power in the region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's
theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S.
engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital
interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf
oil. (USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy,
emphasis added)
Main Military Actors
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and
Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other countries, in
the region, allies of the US, including several Central Asian former Soviet
republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely involved despite its
official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in
the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with
Israel. There are indications that NATO is also formally involved in the
context of an Israel-NATO agreement reached in November 2004.
Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran
According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush has
already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled for
June.(See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )
The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify that the
attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and Israel are
"in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an attack by June or at
a later date. In other words, the decision to launch the attack has not been
made.
Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation should
nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample evidence
that a major military operation is in preparation:
1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted in recent
months, involving military deployment and the testing of weapons systems.
2) military planning meetings have been held between the various parties
involved. There has been a shuttle of military and government officials
between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.
3) A significant change in the military command structure in Israel has
occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.
4) Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the international
level with a view to securing areas of military cooperation and/or support
for a US-Israeli led military operation directed against Iran.
5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been stepped up.
6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to intervene in Iran has
been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran constitutes a threat to
peace and global security.
Timeline of Key Initiatives
In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, which are
broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the military
pipeline:
November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF delegation to
the NATO conference to met with military brass of six members of the
Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania. "NATO seeks to revive the framework, known
as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which would include Israel. The
Israeli delegation accepted to participate in military exercises and
"anti-terror maneuvers" together with several Arab countries.
January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises in the
Eastern Mediterranean, off the coast of Syria. These exercises, which have
been held in previous years were described as routine.
February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in November 2004,
Israel was involved for the first time in military exercises with NATO,
which also included several Arab countries.
February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves Israeli and US
interests and was used as a pretext to demand the withdrawal of Syrian
troops from Lebanon.
February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya?alon and appoints
Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in Israeli history that
an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff (See Uri Avnery,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )
The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of Staff is
considered in Israeli political circles as "the appointment of the right man
at the right time." The central issue is that a major aerial operation
against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General Halutz is slated to
coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. Halutz's appointment was
specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: "As chief of staff, he will in
the best position to prepare the military for such a scenario."
March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for follow-up talks
with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following the joint
NATO-Israel military exercise in February. These military cooperation ties
are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to "enhance Israel's
deterrence capability regarding potential enemies threatening it, mainly
Iran and Syria." The premise underlying NATO-Israel military cooperation is
that Israel is under attack:
"The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country facing enemies who
attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the greater will be the
possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by NATO. Furthermore, Iran
and Syria will have to take into account the possibility that the increasing
cooperation between Israel and NATO will strengthen Israel's links with
Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given Turkey's impressive military potential
and its geographic proximity to both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational
options against them, if and when it sees the need, could gain considerable
strength. " (Jaffa Center for Strategic Studies,
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )
The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it obligates NATO
to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as an act of self
defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is also involved in
the process of military consultations relating to the planned aerial bombing
of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral military cooperation
agreement between Israel and Turkey and the likelihood that part of the
military operation will be launched from Turkey, which is a member of NATO.
Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial authorization"
by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on Iran's Natanz uranium
enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop Iran's nuclear program". (The
Hindu, 28 March 2005)
March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli military
exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot missiles.
US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to Israel to
participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the Israeli military.
The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected to events in the
Middle East": "As always, we are interested in implementing lessons learned
Post by unknownfrom training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).
April 2005: Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic endeavors were described
by the Russian media as "literally circling Iran in an attempt to find the
best bridgehead for a possible military operation against that country."
In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for deployment of
US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US military bases
described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to play a role in a
military operation directed against Iran.
Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation agreement with the
US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US troops in several of the
member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. The stated
short term objective is to "neutralize Iran". The longer term objective
under the Pentagon's "Caspian Plan" is to exert military and economic
control over the entire Caspian sea basin, with a view to ensuring US
authority over oil reserves and pipeline corridors.
During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US initiative of
establishing "American special task forces and military bases to secure US
influence in the Caspian region:
"Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of special task
forces and police units in the countries of the regions to be used in
emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex and pipelines.
Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United States ($100 million).
It will become an advance guard of the US European Command whose zone of
responsibility includes the Caspian region. Command center of the project
with a powerful radar is to be located in Baku." ( Defense and Security
Russia, April 27, 2005)
Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian President Mohammad
Khatami's to Baku.
April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, which
occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern frontier.
Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military cooperation group,
which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia. Iran also has
economic cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan.
Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George W Bush at
his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. More
significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high level
talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.
Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an official visit.
He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range anti-aircraft missiles to
Syria and to continue supporting Iran's nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded
surface of international diplomacy, Putin's timely visit to Israel must be
interpreted as "a signal to Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on
Iran.
Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the re-appointment of
Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is not being tough
enough on Iran..." Following US pressures, the vote on the appointment of a
new IAEA chief was put off until June. These developments suggest that
Washington wants to put forth their own hand-picked nominee prior to
launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA,
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 2003, Al
Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix challenged the
(phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN Security Council,
with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)
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/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf
Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in
Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied by his
Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior Israeli military
officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint defense projects,
including the joint production of Arrow II Theater Missile Defense and
Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as the Have Lite, are advanced
small missiles, designed for deployment on fighter planes. Tel Aviv and
Ankara decide to establish a hotline to share intelligence.
May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, leading to a
major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor of Israel and
the US.
Iran Surrounded
The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, Azerbaijan,
Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.
In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. (see Map
below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of NATO`s
partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation agreements
with NATO. In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive
scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet
republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a
Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this
regard:
"since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the country, Israel
will need a mass strike with different fly-in and fly-out approaches -
Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other countries... Azerbaijan
seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku issue a permit to Israeli
aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense and Security Russia, 12 April
2005).
Concluding remarks:
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which
threatens the future of humanity.
Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, which is
by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities,
is part of a project of World domination, a military roadmap, launched at
the end of the Cold War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation,
which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East,
not to mention an implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey
is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks.
Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. (See text
box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US cannot be
excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical nuclear weapons
have now been reclassified as a variant of the conventional bunker buster
bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for use in conventional war
theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians because the explosion is
underground")
In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a nuclear
threat.
The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing
active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and
Palestine.
The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea
basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia,
where US troops are stationed.
An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement
inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military
capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. (The
150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully engaged and could not be
redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)
In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East
region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently,
involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US
sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader
conflict.
Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and Chinese
interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea basin and
which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes on European
oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major divisions between
Western allies, between the US and its European partners as well as within
the European Union.
Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, would be
brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO largely hinges on
a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO and Israel. This
agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against Syria and Iran. NATO
would therefore support a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities,
and could take on a more active role if Iran were to retaliate following
US-Israeli air strikes.
Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US military
agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually
leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
The Antiwar Movement
The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next phase of
this war from happening.
This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will not in
itself reverse the tide of war.
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military
and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war
agenda.
What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at national and
international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of the military and
political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental in unseating those
who rule in our name.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized
into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and
well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian
mandate.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems) must be stopped
and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also be
targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial
institutions and the corporate media, which has become an integral part of
the war propaganda machine.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war criminals in the
US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.
What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire and the
underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the "war on
terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public opinion in support
of a global war agenda.
SideBar/TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities
With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery
system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest
nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in the size and
sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear
arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear
weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be publicly
recognized as such.
Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a minimum of 200
to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is little doubt that
Israeli nukes are among the world's most sophisticated, largely designed for
"war fighting" in the Middle East. A staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal
are "neutron bombs," miniaturized thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize
deadly gamma radiation while minimizing blast effects and long term
radiation- in essence designed to kill people while leaving property
intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic missiles and bombers capable of
reaching Moscow...
The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than the
Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential arsenals of all
other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly greater than any
conceivable need for "deterrence."
Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, let alone
challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region, often
leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed action strategies.
Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass destruction directly and
honestly on the table and action agenda would have several salutary effects.
First, it would expose a primary destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle
East arms race and compelling the region's states to each seek their own
"deterrent."
Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees the U.S.
and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for developing
weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting and enabling
the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear strategy would focus
international public attention, resulting in increased pressure to dismantle
its weapons of mass destruction and negotiate a just peace in good faith.
Finally, a nuclear free Israel would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a
comprehensive regional peace agreement much more likely. Unless and until
the world community confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is
unlikely that there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab
conflict, a fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.
Source: John Steinbach, Israel's Nuclear Arsenal,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html
© Copyright MICHEL CHOSSUDOVSKY 2005.
