2 novembre 2007 5 02 /11 /novembre /2007 18:02
"Enquête sur une guerre programmée "

Bush-l-iran.jpg Les Etats-Unis et L'Iran
sont-ils au bord de la guerre ?

Un conflit de cette ampleur, dans une zone aussi sensible, pourrait avoir des conséquences incalculables. Depuis plusieurs mois, Eric Laurent enquête sur cet affrontement qui se profile. Il a rencontré les principaux protagonistes américains, iraniens, européens, russes, israéliens, restitué le détail des négociations engagées et aussi obtenu des révélations sur une guerre qui semble déjà programmée du côté américain.

Il révèle pour la première fois que dès la fin de l'année 2003, George W. Bush a adopté une directive top secret, dont le nom de code est CONPLAN 8022 qui prévoit l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires tactiques contre l'Iran. Une première depuis Hiroshima. Il apporte des informations stupéfiantes sur les hommes de l'ombre qui, autour du Vice Président Cheney ont poussé le président américain à l'épreuve de force. Malgré l'échec irakien.

Avec son nouveau livre, Eric Laurent nous fait pénétrer dans les coulisses du pouvoir, à Washington, mais aussi à Téhéran où le chef spirituel du Président iranien Ahmadinejad, l'Ayatollah Yazdi déclare que l'Iran doit se préparer à une guerre imminente avec Washington qui conduira au retour immédiat du 12e Imam révéré par la religion Chiite.

Nous découvrons aussi que malgré l'affrontement américano-iranien, les affaires continuent, notamment pour la firme du Vice Président Chenney, Halliburton. Malgré l'interdiction officielle, la firme pétrolière possède un bureau à Téhéran, exploite un gisement gazien géant iranien et coopère avec les gardiens de la Révolution iraniens pourtant considérés officiellement par l'administration Bush comme une organisation terroriste. Parmi les nombreuses révélations qui composent l'ouvrage, Eric Laurent évoque l'opération Merlin : la CIA s'est trompée en voulant transmettre de fausses informations à Téhéran sur la fabrication de l'arme nucléaire et lui a en réalité permis de réaliser des avancées considérables.

photo--ric-nb.jpgUn livre qui déchiffre une des crises les plus graves que nous ayons jamais vécu, et l'énigme George W. Bush : désormais le Président américain pense qu'il sera jugé par l'Histoire et la postérité et s'identifie à Truman, considéré aujourd'hui comme un des grands présidents après avoir connu des sommets d'impopularité.

Eric Laurent, Grand reporter, écrivain, spécialiste en politique étrangère.

Maîtrise de droit, puis études en Sciences de la Communication à l'université de Berkeley en Californie.


Parution 4 octobre 2007 - Editions PLON

Repost 0
27 octobre 2007 6 27 /10 /octobre /2007 16:17

Reminder to the crusading Armageddonists .....  “Thou shalt not kill.” Exodus 20: 13

They are at it again. Remember when Milosovic was labelled “the butcher of Belgrade”, the new Hitler? Then Saddam Hussein was “the butcher of Bagdad” and, of course the most dangerous man since Hitler - with weapons of mass destruction which could be unleashed on the world “in forty five minutes”.

Colin Powell
lied to the U.N., about the danger Iraq posed to the planet; George Bush lied to anyone who would listen; Tony Blair lied to Parliament and aides concocted dossiers so dodgy they were laughable, yet in spite of the millions who marched, protested and knew the lies for what they were, there were millions who bought fiction as fact.

And here we go again. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (wait for “the tyrant of Tehran”) threatens the planet, is supplying weapons to Iraq's resistance, is destabilising the region and the paradise that is occupied Iraq. Whilst there are indeed plenty of Iranians or Iranian sympathisers in Iraq, they came in with the occupiers. Many in high places in Iraq's corrupt, militia driven, American puppet government, speak Farsi, not Arabic.


The increasingly hysterical claims regarding Iran, the latest threat to life as we know it, is being brought to you by the very same warmongers who wrought the duplicity that resulted in Iraq's murderous decimation, the hawks' nest which is the American Enterprise Institute and their friends.

A glance at the AEI website lists those including: Paul Wolfowitz (“entrepreneurship and development”), Michael Rubin (“Arab democracy”), Richard Perle (“defence ...intelligence”), Joshua Muravchik (“global democracy”), John Bolton (“foreign policy”), Lynne Cheney, whose husband, as ever, is believed a driving force behind the attack plan (“culture and education”), Michael Ledeen (latest book: “The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots Quest for Destruction”), Daniell Pletka (“Vice President for foreign and defence policy studies”) who, writing in the “Wall Street Journal” (28th September 2007) referred to Iran's “illegal nuclear weapons ... Washington's impotence” and “clear information of a link to a weapons of mass destruction programme”. This in spite of the International Atomic Energy Authority finding no indication of such programmes. It all sounds chillingly familiar.


Interestingly, an item on the Institute's list of “Research Projects” is “Global Investment in Iran”. Surely a matter for Iran - or does the AEI already regard Iran's oil fields and assets as their fiscal frolic zone?


Orchestration is continuing apace: “Even as we are succeeding in Iraq” (really?) “Iran is working against us ... we will not achieve peace in the region if we ignore this threat”, writes Ledeen. Further, there are clear plans to liberate Iran's women, Afghan style: “Since 1979, Iran has changed from a society where women could attend university and have careers, to one where they are second class citizens ... sold as slaves ...”. writes Diana Furchgott-Roth in the New York Sun (14th September 2007.)

There must be two Irans: “Literacy is well over ninety percent, even in the rural areas and in 2005, more than sixty five percent of students entering university were women. The voices that come through most strongly on the Iranian blogosphere are those of this educated, young generation.” Over sixty five percent of this country of seventy million are under thirty years old.


“I feel cold when I think about a possible war against my homeland”, wrote one blogger: “My picture of war hasn't come from Hollywood movies, I have seen the pain, the kids tears, bloody streets ...” In a picture showing a meeting of the Tehran Photographers Association, the venue is packed with vibrantly dressed women - and one man. (See : Inside Iran, New Internationalist, March 2007: www.newint.org


Iran is not perfect, but where is? Britain's Prime Minister Brown "refuses to rule out" joining the US military intervention - to decimate for “democracy” and plunder resources. According to the Sunday Telegraph (1st October 2007), a dossier is being drawn up on Iran's violations of International Law, as with Iraq. “Violations of International Law”? Two countries, Britain and America  have not alone violated, but torn up International Law. Yet again, who guards the guards?


Can a nation who even invaded Grenada (which has no armed forces, main exports: bananas, nutmeg, mace; a war for nutmegs?) in 1983, totalling a psychiatric hospital (24th anniversary, 25th October) population 94.103 (1994) v. United States, population 260.713.000 (1994) because it was a “threat”, be trusted?

But the war drums are beating: “WE MUST bomb Iran”, is the header for Josua Muravchik's Los Angeles Times article (19th June 2007.)

He begins with quotes straight from the Pentagon's Iraq propaganda handbook: “...since the country's secret nuclear programme was brought to light ... the path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere.” Tehran has “spurned” a “string of concessions”; the UN Security Council was derelict in its duty toward the Iranian threat.

The completion of Iran's nuclear arsenal grows closer daily, this “premier state sponsor of terrorism” could “slip nuclear material to terrorists”. The bomb Iran doesn't have, would, of course “constitute a dire threat to Israel's six million population”. No mention of Israel being the fifth largest nuclear power on earth, without a blink towards the non-proliferation treaty, or indeed even an admission of having such weapons.


However Iran's non-weapons: “would spend finis to the entire non-proliferation system”. The “...global struggle” with Iran is “akin” to the forty year one with the Soviet Union and - wait for it – “a clash of civlisations”.


“The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force ... by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets.... What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year, that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its bankruptcy ...'” is Murachik's conclusion. “Deja vu, all over again.”


Not mentioned, anywhere, in the demented rhetoric regarding an attack on Iran, is the “A” word: Armageddon. “Likely targets for saturation bombing” (that look likely to involve tactical nuclear weapons) “are the Bushehr nuclear power plant” (where Russian and other foreign national technicians are present) “a uranium mining site at Saghand” (near a major city, Yazd) “the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, a heavy water plant and radioisotope facility at Arak, the Arkedan Nuclear Fuel Unit, the Uranium Enrichment Facility and Nuclear Technology Centre in Isfahan, the Tehran Nuclear Research Cnetree, the Tehran Molybdenum, Iodine and Xenon Radioisotope Production Facility .... a reportedly dismantled uranium enrichment plant at Lashkar Abad and the Radioactive Waste Storage Units in Karaj and Anarak”.
(Wayne Madsen: http://www.entimesreport.com/Attack_on_Iran.html )


These were facilities, many begun after the US/UK overthrow of Iran's democratically elected, democratic Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, after he had nationalised the country's oil. The coup was engineered by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Theodore. General Norman Schwartzkopf's father then travelled to Iran, to help train Savak, the murderous, ruthless, secret police of America's friend, the Shah.


However, modern history aside, forget global warming. 


Consider the enormity of the seemingly proposed attack, apart from the unimaginable horror of those fried and irradiated in the immediate vicinity and surrounding countries (including “allied”, troops throughout the region.).

This is a succinct description of what the explosion of just one nuclear power plant generated, Chernobyl, in 1986:  “Irradiated human cells splinter into fragments called micronuclei ... a definitive pre-cursor of cancer. During the nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl, the ...radiation released was the equivalent of four hundred atomic bombs ... Exposed Russians quickly developed blood cell micronuclei ...” (The Radiation Poisoning of America, Amy Worthington, 9th October 2007: http://www.globalresearch.ca )


The plight of the children and the Chernobyl region's cancers twenty one years on, have become an ongoing, tragic, global health study, as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the residents of the Pacific islands, after the British and French nuclear tests. Chernobyl's radiation traversed the globe within days. In the highlands of the U.K., Wales and Cumbria, livestock straying in affected areas are still inedible and unsaleable. Chernobyl was doused from the air with fire retardant, by crews, which, in spite of protection by heavily leaded cockpit floors, reportedly, not one has survived the ravaging resultant cancers. If Chernobyl was four hundred atomic bombs, see the above list and do the maths. Don't forget to add the “coalition's” democratic nuclear weapons dropped on them.


Norman Podhoretz, one of the founding fathers of neo-conservatism in the United States, is gung-ho, another one reportedly urging Bush to bomb Iran. He told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You are the only one with the guts to do it.”(Sunday Times, 1st October 2007.) A holocaust by any other name ...


Mohammad Mossadegh and Saddam Hussein made fatal mistakes. They nationalised their countries' oil. Saddam Hussein finally tied the noose around his neck, when he switched Iraq's oil revenues out of US Dollars and into Euros in 2000.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
has also vowed to switch from US Dollars and move to a currency “further east”.

As Iraq, is this really about a nuclear threat?

Will the millions who believed the last great lie, be fooled again? If they are not, will it make any difference, in the illegal space the US and UK Administrations inhabit?


On the ground in the Middle East (or in this case on the water) it seems not. Here is a communication from a Landing Signals Officer* (an LSO directs carrier aircraft whilst landing) on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategically vital oil routes, which is controlled by Iran.


The LSO is convinced Iran will be attacked, commenting that “... all Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished (meaning) all targets have been chosen, prioritized and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers ...” Further, the LSO comments, there is deep disquiet amongst senior officers about “staging a massive attack on Iran”. However, “I have seen more than one senior Commander disappear ...”; it's weird, because everyone who has “disappeared” has questioned this mission.


How limited would the attack be?

“I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every Tomahawk, we have an inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden (with) thousands of targets. I believe no American will know when it happens, until after it happens.”The LSO ponders that discussing a secret attack is “treason” but is so concerned “something tells me to tell it anyway.”

“Yes, we are going to hit Iran big time. Whatever political discussion that is going on is window dressing ... a red herring. I see what's going on here below deck, in the hangers and weapons bay - and I have a sick feeling about how it is going to turn out.'”

Would the US Administration really endanger the entire planet?

Here is a story told to me by Bernard Lown, one of co-founders of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) during the Reagan era. http://www.ippnw.org Lown worked closely with another eminent fellow cardiac surgeon, the (then) USSR's Yevgeny Chazov. Since physicians know no borders, they had formed a friendship, then a movement, which bridged the cold war, the Reagan “Evil Empire” (re. the Soviet Union) nonsense and within two years, had doctors and surgeons from eighty two countries spreading the word, that even cardiac arrest paled against nuclear war.


In 1995, IPPNW collectively won the Nobel Peace Prize.


Since Lown travelled, lecturing, to the USSR frequently and had built trust over many years at all levels, the US State Department asked if he would engage in some unofficial diplomacy. Relations between the two countries were far worse than most realised. After one such visit to Moscow, I met Lown in Paris. We sat in dappled Spring sun, at a pavement breakfast café - fresh squeezed orange, coffee, croissants.

“I came back two days ago and went to talk (at the State Department) of the concerns in Moscow. Afterwards, a senior official - a household name (he declined to divulge) walked me to the exit. As we neared the exit, he put his arm round my shoulders:

'Don't worry, Professor Lown, if there is a nuclear war, we will be the first ones to rise up and meet Jesus in the sky.'” Lown, used to the vagaries of the unwell, responded: “Tell me, does anyone else in this building feel as you do?”


“Oh yes, many of us do.”


The swathe of “household names”, from the Reagan era, are now in the Bush Administration and the American Enterprise Institute.
The Armageddonists are back.

The world should be very afraid - or should the physicians in white coats move in?


Felicity Arbuthnot is a journalist and activist who has visited the Arab and Muslim world on numerous occasions. She has written and broadcast on Iraq, her coverage of which was nominated for several awards. She was also senior researcher for John Pilger's award-winning documentary.


"Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq".

and author, with Nikki van der Gaag, of “Baghdad” in the “Great Cities” series, for World Almanac Books (2006.)


*Regarding the LSO, this came from a second, but highly trusted source, who for obvious reasons, would not divulge the name or further details of the LSO.

Please also see:

Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel

Religious Extremists in America (Christian Zionists)

Kill Or Convert, Brought To You By the Pentagon

Military Religious Freedom Foundation
Al-Bushra http://www.al-bushra.org

Christians be aware!

Repost 0
24 octobre 2007 3 24 /10 /octobre /2007 17:29
Le 23 octobre 2007

« Il y a un leader en Iran qui a déclaré qu'il souhaitait détruire Israël. J'ai alors dit aux gens que si on est intéressé par éviter la troisième guerre mondiale, on doit aussi s’efforcer de l’empêcher d'acquérir les connaissances nécessaires à la fabrication d'armes nucléaires. Je considère que l'Iran doté de l’arme nucléaire serait une menace très sérieuse... » (George W. Bush, le 17 octobre 2007)


Rictus et rire : « Voici son expression alors qu'il prononce les mots "troisième guerre mondiale" » (Huffington Post, le 17 octobre 2007)



« Je crois que (la révolte des passagers du vol 93 détourné le 11 septembre 2001) a été la première contre-attaque de la troisième guerre mondiale. » (George W. Bush, le 6 mai 2006)

« Cette idée que les États-Unis se prépare à attaquer l'Iran est tout simplement ridicule ... Cela dit, toutes les options sont sur la table. » (George W. Bush, février 2005)

Nous ne vivons pas dans un monde sain et rationnel où les très importantes décisions prises par le président des États-Unis reposent sur une compréhension de leurs conséquences possibles.

Une troisième guerre mondiale n'est plus un scénario hypothétique.

Pendant la Guerre Froide, la notion de « destruction mutuelle assurée » (MAD en anglais) a été développée. Une compréhension des conséquences dévastatrices d'une guerre nucléaire a largement contribué à éviter le déclenchement de la guerre entre les États-Unis et l'Union Soviétique.

Aujourd'hui, dans l'après-guerre froide, ce sens du discernement n’a plus cours. Le spectre d'un holocauste nucléaire qui hante le monde depuis un demi-siècle a été relégué au statut de «dommage collatéraux ».

Sous les néoconservateurs, la politique étrangère des États-Unis est fondée sur un programme diabolique et criminel. La «guerre contre le terrorisme» est un mensonge; l'Iran ne constitue ni une menace pour la sécurité mondiale - comme l'a confirmé un récent rapport de l'Agence Internationale de l'Énergie Atomique (AIEA) - ni une menace pour Israël.

Le président des États-Unis est un menteur qui croit ses propres mensonges.

Bien que les armes nucléaires inexistantes de l'Iran soient censées constituer une menace mortelle, les armes nucléaires tactiques « made in USA » sont décrites dans les documents du Pentagone comme étant « inoffensives pour la population civile environnante. »

Ironiquement, ceux qui décident de l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires croient en leur propre propagande. Une attaque nucléaire préventive contre l'Iran est présentée comme un véritable engagement humanitaire qui contribuerait à la sécurité mondiale.

Et maintenant, le chef de l'État US, qui a une compréhension limitée de la géopolitique, et encore moins de la géographie, insinue que si l'Iran ne renonçait pas à son programme inexistant d'armes nucléaires, nous pourrions être forcés d'entrer à contrecoeur dans un scénario de troisième guerre mondiale. Bush a insinué qu’en tant que commandant en chef, il pourrait décider de déclencher une guerre contre l'Iran, qui pourrait nous conduire à la troisième guerre mondiale.

« Le Docteur Folamour refait surface. » 


Dans une logique complètement tordue, la troisième guerre mondiale est présentée par le président des États-Unis comme un moyen d’empêcher des dommages collatéraux.

La guerre serait déclenchée par l'Iran, qui a refusé de se conformer aux « demandes raisonnables » de la « communauté internationale ».

La réalité est faussée et même inversée. L'Iran est accusé de vouloir déclencher la troisième guerre mondiale.





Le black-out des Médias

L'opinion publique mondiale a les yeux rivés sur le cataclysme du réchauffement climatique. En revanche, la troisième guerre mondiale ne fait pas la une des journaux. Nous parlons de la perte de dizaines de milliers de vies : les conséquences du planning militaire des Etats-Unis, qui envisage l'utilisation préventive d'armes nucléaires de manière très concrète, menacent l'avenir de l'humanité.

À l'heure actuelle, les États-Unis et les forces de la coalition incluant l'OTAN et Israël sont dans un état de préparation avancé pour déclencher une attaque contre l'Iran. Les dirigeants de la coalition ont une pleine et entière connaissance qu'une telle action conduira à un scénario de troisième guerre mondiale. Des scénarios d'escalade militaire ont déjà été envisagés et analysés par le Pentagone. Les exercices militaires parrainés par les États-Unis ont même prévu la possibilité d'une intervention de la Russie et la Chine.

L’idée de la troisième guerre mondiale trotte dans la tête des architectes néoconservateurs de la politique étrangère des États-Unis dès les débuts du régime Bush. Elle est contenue dans un document publié en septembre 2000 par le «Project of the New American Century (PNAC)» [Projet pour le nouveau siècle américain].

Les objectifs déclarés du PNAC impliquent une « longue guerre », une guerre mondiale sans frontières :


- « défendre la patrie américaine;


- combattre simultanément sur des théâtres de guerre majeurs et remporter de multiples victoires de manière décisive;


- remplir les fonctions de gendarme afin de créer un environnement de sécurité dans les régions critiques;


- transformer les forces armées US pour exploiter la « révolution dans les affaires militaires. » 


L'ancien sous-secrétaire à la Défense Paul Wolfowitz, l'ancien secrétaire à la Défense Donald Rumsfeld et le vice-président Dick Cheney ont commandé le plan au PNAC avant les élections présidentielles de l'an 2000. Le PNAC esquisse une feuille de route de conquête.


La doctrine nucléaire préventive figurant dans le « Nuclear Posture Review » est soutenue par le Parti Républicain et les think-tanks [cercles de réflexion, NdT] conservateurs de Washington.  



George W. Bush est un instrument aux mains de puissants intérêts économiques. Le scénario de guerre préventive contre l'Iran reçoit largement l'appui du Congrès des Etats-Unis. Il est également soutenu par les partenaires et les alliés européens des États-Unis. Les dirigeants républicains ont exprimé leur soutien à un scénario de troisième guerre mondiale préventive. Dans une entrevue de 2006, au plus fort des bombardements israéliens sur le Liban (16 juillet 2007), l'ancien président de la Chambre des représentants Newt Gingrich a reconnu candidement : 

« Nous sommes dans les premières étapes de ce que je décrirais comme la troisième guerre mondiale et franchement, notre administration ne réagit pas assez vite et nous n'avons pas la bonne attitude. C'est la 58e année de la guerre visant à détruire Israël et franchement, les Israéliens ont tous les droits d'insister pour que les missiles présents au Liban-Sud disparaissent. Les États-Unis devrait venir en aide au gouvernement libanais pour l’aider à éliminer le Hezbollah en tant que force militaire au Liban-Sud – mais pas comme force politique au Parlement. »

L'administration Bush a adopté une politique de première frappe nucléaire « préventive » qui a maintenant reçu l'approbation du Congrès. Les armes nucléaires ne sont plus une arme de dernier recours comme c'était le cas pendant la Guerre Froide.

Dans un document confidentiel du Pentagone (Nuclear Posture Review) présenté au Sénat au début de l'année 2002, l'administration Bush a mis en place des plans pour une « première attaque offensive » avec des armes nucléaires, non seulement contre l’« axe du mal » (l'Irak, l'Iran, la Libye, la Syrie et la Corée du Nord), mais aussi contre la Russie et la Chine.



Other articles by Michel Chossudovsky on Internationalnews:

Repost 0
24 octobre 2007 3 24 /10 /octobre /2007 17:13



Associated Press WriterTue Oct 23

Fidel Castro wrote Tuesday President Bush is threatening the world with nuclear war and famine — an attack on Washington a day before the White House plans to announce new plans to draw Cuba away from communism.

"The danger of a massive world famine is aggravated by Mr. Bush's recent initiative to transform foods into fuel," Castro wrote in Cuban news media, referring to U.S. support for using corn and other food crops to produce gasoline substitutes.

The brief essay titled "Bush, Hunger and Death" also alleged that Bush "threatens humanity with World War III, this time using atomic weapons."

Bush is expected to announce new strategies toward Cuba on Wednesday. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said last week that Bush would "emphasize the importance of democracy for the Cuban people and the role the international community can play in Cuba's transition by insisting on free speech, free assembly, free and competitive elections and the release of all political prisoners."

In his essay, Castro predicted that Bush "will adopt new measures to accelerate the 'transition period' in our country, equivalent to a new conquest of Cuba by force." Cuban officials have long denounced U.S. efforts to produce a "transition" from Castro's government to a Western-style representative democracy.

Ailing and 81, Castro has not been seen in public since undergoing emergency intestinal surgery and ceding power to a provisional government headed by his younger brother Raul in July 2006.

While he has looked upbeat and lucid in official videos, he also seems too frail to resume power.

Life on the island has changed little under Raul Castro, the 76-year-old defense minister who was his elder brother's hand-picked successor for decades.

Cuba staged municipal elections on Sunday, the first step in a process that will determine if Fidel Castro is re-elected or replaced next year as Cuban leader.


Repost 0
19 octobre 2007 5 19 /10 /octobre /2007 07:19
Global Research, October 17, 2007

"We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously...." (George W. Bush, 17 October 2007) 


"I believe that. I believe that [the revolt of passengers on the hijacked flight 93 on September 11, 2001] was the first counter-attack to World War III." (George W. Bush, May 6, 2006)

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the table."  George W. Bush, February 2005)

We are not living a sound and rational World where far-reaching decisions by the US President are based on an understanding of their likely consequences. 

A World War III is no longer a hypothetical scenario


During the Cold War, the concept of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) was put forth. An understanding of the devastating consequences of nuclear war largely contributed to avoiding the outbreak of war between the US and the Soviet Union.

Today, in the post-Cold war era, no such understanding prevails. The specter of a nuclear holocaust,  which haunted the world for half a century has been relegated to the status of "collateral damage".

US foreign policy under the Neocons is based on a diabolical and criminal agenda. The "war on  terrorism" is a lie; Iran does not constitute a threat to global security as confirmed by a recent IAEA report. Iran does not constitute a threat to Israel. 

The US president is a liar, who believes his own lies. 

Iran-Nukes-Cartoon2.jpgWhile Iran's non existent nukes are said to constitute a lethal and deadly threat, so-called tactical nuclear weapons "Made in America" are described in Pentagon documents as "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". 

In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda. A preemptive nuclear attack on Iran is upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to global security.  

And now the US Head of State, who has a limited understanding of geopolitics, let alone geography, is hinting that if Iran does not give up its nonexistent nuclear weapons program,  we might be reluctantly forced into in a World War III situation. Bush has insinuated that as Commander in Chief, he could decide to launch a war on Iran, which would result in World War III. 

"Dr. Strangelove rides again." In an utterly twisted logic, World War III is presented by the US President as a means to preventing collateral damage. 

The war would be triggered by Iran, who has refused to abide by the "reasonable demands" of "the international community". 

Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of wanting to start World War III.

Media Blackout

World public opinion has its eyes riveted on the cataclysm of "global warming". World War III on the other hand is not front page news. We are talking about the loss of tens of thousands of lives: the consequences of the US military agenda which includes the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in a very concrete way threatens the future of humanity. 

At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the coalition fully understand that such an action will result in a World War III scenario. Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon. US sponsored war games have even foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China.

World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign policy from the outset of the Bush regime. It is contained in a document published in September 2000 by the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), 

 The PNAC's declared objectives imply a "long war", a global war without borders::

"defend the American homeland;

 fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;

 perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;

 transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military affairs;"

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential elections. The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest.

The pre-emptive nuclear doctrine contained in the Nuclear Posture Review is supported by the Republican Party and Washington’s conservative think-tanks

George W. Bush is an instrument of powerful economic interests. A preemptive war on Iran has widespread support by the US Congress, it is also supported by America's European partners and allies.  Leading Republicans have expressed their support for a preemptive World War III scenario. In a 2006 interview at the height of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon (July 16, 2007), former Republican leader of the House Newt Gingrich candidly acknowledged:

strangelove-1-copie-1.jpg"We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon."

The Bush Administration has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the Cold War era.

In a classified Pentagon document (Nuclear Posture Review) presented to the US Senate in early 2002, the Bush Administration established so-called "contingency plans" for an offensive "first strike use" of nuclear weapons, not only against the "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea), but also against Russia and China.


Excerpts of President Bush's October 17th White House Press Conference (emphasis added)

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow on Mr. -- on President Putin's visit to Tehran. It's not about the image of President Putin and President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said there. He issued a stern warning against potential U.S. military action -- U.S. military action against Tehran --

THE PRESIDENT: Did he say U.S.?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, he did?

Q He said -- well, at least the quote said that -- and he also said, "He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb." Were you disappointed with that message? And does that indicate possibly that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?

THE PRESIDENT: I -- as I said, I look forward to -- if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those, because when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's interest to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. And that's why, on -- in the first round at the U.N., he joined us, and second round, we joined together to send a message. I mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, Bret, then why did we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?

And so I will visit with him about it. I have not yet been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin.

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says it's not worth the isolation.

Other articles by Michel Chossudovsky :



© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
Repost 0
9 octobre 2007 2 09 /10 /octobre /2007 09:09
  Dangerous Crossroads: US Sponsored War Game

Global Research, October 6, 2007

Michel-Chossudovsky.jpgUS Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has announced the conduct of major war games under Vigilant Shield 2008 (VS-08). 

Vigilant Shield 2008 (15 to 20 October, 2007) is designed to deal with a "terrorist" or "natural disaster" scenario in the United States. The operation will be coordinated  in a joint endeavor by the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Yet, VS-08, which includes a massive deployment of the US Air Force resembles a war-time air scenario rather than an anti-terrorist drill. The VS-08 war games extend over the entire North American shelf. Canadian territory is also involved through Canada's participation in NORAD. (See Nazemroaya, October 2007)

These war games are being conducted at an important historical crossroads, amidst mounting US pressures and threats to actually declare a "real war" on Iran. 

VS-08 is predicated on the doctrine of preemptive warfare, with a vie to protecting the Homeland.  The war games are coordinated with anti-terrorist drills directed against presumed Islamic terrorists. 

Moreover, the announcement by NORTHCOM of the VS-08 war games-anti-terror drills coincided with a declaration by the Bush administration in early September that military action against Iran is being contemplated at the highest echelons of the US government and Military: 

"President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, .. Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, ... Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran. (Quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 September 2007).

VS-08 is a large scale military exercise to be conducted over North America and the Northern Pacific Ocean, extending westwards towards the Far East borders of  Russia and China: 

"USNORTHCOM’s primary exercise venues for VS-08 include locations in Oregon, Arizona and a cooperative venue with USPACOM in the Territory of Guam. NORAD’s aerospace detection and defense events will take place across all the exercise venues, to exercise the ability to mobilize resources for aerospace defense, aerospace control, maritime warning, and coordination of air operations in a disaster area." (PNC, October 2007) 

Both the war games under VS-08 as well as the domestic antiterrorist drills involve the participation of Canada, Britain and Australia:    

"VS-08 and National Level Exercise 1-08 will provide local, state, tribal, interagency, Department of Defense, and non-governmental organizations and agencies involved in homeland security and homeland defense the opportunity to participate in a full range of exercise scenarios that will better prepare participants to prevent and respond to national crises. The participating organizations will conduct a multi-layered, civilian-led response to a national crisis."( See NORTHCOM Fact Sheet).

Pacific Shield 2007

Vigilant Shield 2008 will be preceded by another set of exercises organized by Japan. The Tokyo government will host a multinational Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) Maritime Interdiction Exercise “Pacific Shield 07”(PS-07) in the eastern sea area off Izu Oshima, and at the Ports of Yokosuka and Yokohama (13-15 October, (See the Japanese government communique). The stated objective of the PS 07 exercises is to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)". Australia, France, New Zealand, Singapore, the UK, and the US will be participating in 'Pacific Shield 07'.  

"Linked Exercises"

The administration is talking about "linked exercises", where war scenarios are conducted simultaneously and in close coordination with civilian anti-terrorist drills. This central concept --which underlies the "Global War on Terrorism"-- has a direct bearing on the conduct of the US led war in the Middle East. At the same time, the process of "domestic security" has become entrenched and integrated into military planning. 

The 'linked exercises" provide an environment which favors the militarization of civilian institutions. They also impart the military with a further opportunity to interfere in domestic civilian law enforcement and judicial functions. 

The conduct of the anti-terrorist exercise is intended to justify the need to retaliate against an illusive outside enemy (Al Qaeda), even if the US is not attacked. 

But there are indications that the administration has envisaged from the standpoint of military planning, for several years now, a scenario of a second major terrorist attack on America . According to Pentagon officials referring to a classified military document: 

"Another [second 911] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets [Iran, Syria], according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan." (WP 23 April 2006).

The above Pentagon statement suggests that a "Second 911" attack characterised by a  "mass casualty producing event" is part of military doctrine and planning. A real "false flag" attack or even the threat of a terrorist attack could be used as a justification to wage war on Iran.  

In the month following the 2005 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11. 

Targeting Russia and China

VS-8  is based on a scenario of confrontation with Russia and China. The Bush administration has accused Tehran of supporting Islamic terrorism, while also pointing to the fact that Iran in fact has the support of both China and Russia.  

While the contents of VS-08 have not been released, last year's Vigilant Shield exercise (Vigilant Shield 07), which simulated the outbreak of a major war, contemplated four hypothetical enemies: Ruebek (Russia), Churya (China), Irmingham (Iran) and Nemazee (North Korea).  

In last year's briefing documents of the Vigilant Shield 07 war games, the following scenario was contemplated by participants: 

 "•Nemazee continues to develop nuclear and missile capabilities 

  • Southwest Asian country of Irmingham intent on uranium enrichment program 

  • Western countries and United States seeking U.N. assistance to halt Irmingham’s enrichment program 

  • Eurasian country of Ruebek attempts to mediate Irmingham crisis by offering nuclear oversight while secretly supporting enrichment program 

  • Asian country of Churya will become concerned at increasing level of Ruebek-U.S. hostility" 

(quoted by William Arkin, Washington Post, October 2006)

The outcome of VS-07 was a limited attack by Ruebek and Nemazee on the United States.  

"Minus 1 Day:
 • Ruebek Expels US Mission

• Phase 2 / Execution: 10 – 14 Dec 06

 – Pre-Attack I & W
 – Imminent Terrorist Attack on Pentagon Suggests Pentagon COOP [continuity of operations plan]
 – Nemazee Conducts 2 x ICBM Combat Launches Against United States
 – Ruebek Conducts Limited Strategic Attack on United States"

quoted by William Arkin, Washington Post, October 2006)

TOPOFF 4: Selective Propaganda directed at "Top Officials" 

This year's VS-08 exercise combines the VS-08 hypothetical war scenario over the North American shelf  with the conduct of major domestic anti-terrorist drills under TOPOFF 4. 

The latter is a large scale anti-terror exercise for "top officials". It includes the participation of senior decision makers from federal, State and municipal governments, law enforcement, nongovernmental bodies as well as representatives from the business community. 

According to Denis Shrader, Deputy DHS Administrator in testimony to the US Congress (October 3): 

"The exercise will be executed with the participation of all appropriate Cabinet-level secretaries or their deputies, and will include the activation of all necessary operations centers to accurately simulate a truly national response to these major terrorist incidents. This will include the utilization of all five elements of the National Operations Center and the FEMA Region IX and X Regional Response Coordination Centers. In addition, the FEMA Emergency Response Teams and Federal Incident Response Support Teams as well as DHS Situational Awareness Teams will activate in each of the venues and will simulate the establishment of a Joint Field Office in accordance with the latest National Response Framework guidance."

This year's TOPOFF 4 exercises involves setting off fake radiological dispersal devices (RDD) or "dirty bombs" in Oregon, Arizona and the US Pacific island territory of Guam. According to Northern Command:

"The T4 FSE, based on National Planning Scenario – 11 (NPS-11), begins as terrorists, who have been planning attacks in Oregon, Arizona, and the U.S. Territory of Guam successfully bring radioactive material into the United States. The first of three coordinated attacks occurs in Guam, with the simulated detonation of a Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), or “dirty bomb,” causing casualties and widespread contamination in a populous area. Similar attacks occur in the hours that follow in Portland and Phoenix. A RDD is not the same as a nuclear attack. It is a conventional explosive that, upon detonation, releases radioactive material into the surrounding area. Although it does not cause the type of catastrophic damage associated with a nuclear detonation, there are severe rescue, health, and long-term decontamination concerns associated with a RDD."

TOPOFF 4 will involve the participation of some 15,000 federal, state, territorial and local officials in what is described as "a full-scale response to a multi-faceted terrorist threat". Canada, Australia and the UK will participate in TOPOFF. Observers from some 30 countries have also been invited.  

"It will 'accurately simulate a truly national response to these major terrorist incidents' by emergency response teams, medical units, police forces and top government officials who will have to make difficult decisions to save lives." (quoted by AFP, 4 October 2007)

TOPOFF is a propaganda operation intended for at top decision makers. The objective is to build a consensus among key decision makers that America is threatened by Islamic terrorists, using an improvised nuclear device. 

These terrorists are, according to recent statements, supported by Tehran. The presumption is that the Islamic terrorists, rather than the US, UK or Israel, have the required military capabilities and constitute a real nuclear threat.  

These various anti-terrorist scenarios are intended to build a consensus among key top officials in the US and its coalition partners that the terrorist threat is not only real but the terrorists would be attacking America in a "Second 911" as part of a broader process of military confrontation, in which a number of enemy countries including Ruebek, Churya and Irmingham would be involved.  

We are not, however, dealing with a classical media disinformation campaign. While the TOPOFF exercise has been casually mentioned in press reports, it is not the object of extensive media coverage. In fact very few people are aware of these exercises. 

With regard to TOPOFF, the consensus building process is "internal", it does not pertain to the public at large. The disinformation campaing is intended for key decision-makers within these various governmental and nongovernmental bodies. It includes more than 10,000 participants in important decision-making positions (federal and State officials, law enforcement, fire departments, hospitals, etc), who may be called to act in the case of an emergency situation. These individuals in turn have a mandate to impose the "Global War on Terrorism" consensus within their respective organizations, --i.e. with their co-workers and colleagues, as well as with the people working under their direct supervision.

In other words, this consensus building process reaches out to tens of thousands of people in positions of authority. The antiterrorist agenda and exercises thus become a "talking point" within numerous governmental and nongovernmental organizations.

In turn, the holding of these antiterrorist exercises supports the National Security doctrine of "preemptive war", --i.e. that America has to legitimate right to self defense by intervening in foreign lands including Iran and that America must defend itself against terrorists.

It also sustains the myth of WMD in the hands of terrorists, being used against America, when in fact the US is the largest producer of WMD, with a defense budget of more than 450 billion dollars a year.

The objective is to sustain the war and national security agenda --and of course the possibility of martial law-- within the governmental, nongovernmental and corporate business sectors. Ultimately, the objective is develop across the land, an unequivocal acceptance by key officials (and of their coworkers and subordinates), from the federal to the local level, for an emergency situation, where civil liberties and the rights of citizens would be suspended. 

Michel Chossudovsky
is the author of the international best America’s "War on Terrorism"  Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. 

To order Chossudovsky's book  America's "War on Terrorism", click here 

  Other articles by Michel Chossudovsky on Internationalnews:
Repost 0


  • : internationalnews
  • internationalnews
  • : Un site d'information et de réflexion sur l'actualité internationale, le nouvel ordre mondial, la géostratégie, la propagande, l'impérialisme, le nucléaire, l'économie, l'environnement et la culture, illustré de documentaires. Site géré par des journalistes bénévoles, sans aucune obédience politique, religieuse ou autre.
  • Contact



Dossiers les plus consultés