Is the Bush
Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
Will the US launch
"Mini-nukes" against Iran in
Retaliation for Tehran's
"Non-compliance"?
By Michel Chossudovsky
02/22/06 "Global
Research" -- -- At no
point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been
closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust
which could potentially spread, in terms of
radioactive fallout, over a large part of the
Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which
categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of
last resort" have been scrapped.
"Offensive" military actions using
nuclear warheads are now described as acts of
"self-defence".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons
and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been
blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based
on "a mix of strike capabilities". The
latter, which specifically applies to the
Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran,
envisages the use of nukes in combination with
conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in
the words of President Harry Truman "was
dropped on Hiroshima, a military base",
today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as
"safe for the surrounding civilian
population".
Known in official Washington, as "Joint
Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine
(Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO)
(March 2005)) calls for "integrating
conventional and nuclear attacks" under a
unified and "integrated" Command and
Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management
decision-making process, where military and
strategic objectives are to be achieved, through
a mix of instruments, with little concern for the
resulting loss of human life.
Military planning focuses on "the most
efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal
arrangement of different weapons systems to
achieve stated military goals. In this context,
nuclear and conventional weapons are considered
to be "part of the tool box", from
which military commanders can pick and choose the
instruments that they require in accordance with
"evolving circumstances" in the
"war theatre". (None of these weapons
in the Pentagon's "tool box", including
conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs,
mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are
described as "weapons of mass
destruction" when used by the United States
of America and its "coalition"
partners).
The stated objective is to:
"ensure the most efficient use of force and
provide US leaders with a broader range of
[nuclear and conventional] strike options to
address immediate contingencies. Integration of
conventional and nuclear forces is therefore
crucial to the success of any comprehensive
strategy. This integration will ensure optimal
targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce
the probability of escalation." (Doctrine
for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)
The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and
realities upside down. It not only denies the
devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it
states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear
weapons are "safe" and their use in the
battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral
damage and reduce the probability of
escalation". The issue of radioactive
fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to
tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding
principles which describe nukes as "safe for
civilians" constitute a consensus within the
military, which is then fed into the military
manuals, providing relevant "green
light" criteria to geographical commanders
in the "war theatre".
"Defensive" and
"Offensive" Actions
While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the
stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons
in the Middle East, specifically against Iran
(see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding
America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and
Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for
Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further
in blurring the distinction between
"defensive" and "offensive"
military actions:
"The new triad offers a mix of strategic
offensive and defensive capabilities that
includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike
capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a
robust research, development, and industrial
infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain
offensive forces and defensive systems ..."
(Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)
The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond
preemptive acts of "self-defense", it
calls for "anticipatory action" using
nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy"
which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some
undefined future date:
Responsible security planning requires
preparation for threats that are possible, though
perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military
history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational
conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to
counter weapons and capabilities that exist or
will exist in the near term even if no immediate
likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize
deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces
prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and
that US forces are determined to employ nuclear
weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate
against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)
Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD
program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development.
This twisted formulation goes far beyond the
premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and
NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate
with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:
"The United States will make clear that it
reserves the right to respond with overwhelming
force – including potentially nuclear
weapons – to the use of [weapons of mass
destruction] against the United States, our
forces abroad, and friends and allies." ...
(NSPD 17)
"Integration" of Nuclear and
Conventional Weapons Plans
'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations'
outlines the procedures governing the use of
nuclear weapons and the nature of the
relationship between nuclear and conventional war
operations.
The DJNO states that the:
"use of nuclear weapons within a [war]
theater requires that nuclear and conventional
plans be integrated to the greatest extent
possible" (DJNO, p 47)
The implications of this "integration"
are far-reaching because once the decision is
taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the
President of the United States, to launch a joint
conventional-nuclear military operation, there is
a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be
used without requesting subsequent presidential
approval. In this regard, execution procedures
under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders
pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as
"flexible and allow for changes in the
situation":
"Geographic combatant commanders are
responsible for defining theater objectives and
developing nuclear plans required to support
those objectives, including selecting targets.
When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting
combatant commander, provides detailed planning
support to meet theater planning requirements.
All theater nuclear option planning follows
prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution
System procedures to formulate and implement an
effective response within the timeframe permitted
by the crisis..
Since options do not exist for every scenario,
combatant commanders must have a capability to
perform crisis action planning and execute those
plans. Crisis action planning provides the
capability to develop new options, or modify
existing options, when current limited or major
response options are inappropriate.
...Command, control, and coordination must be
flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant
commander to strike time-sensitive targets such
as mobile missile launch platforms."
'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'
Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)
While presidential approval is formally required
to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat
commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear
Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to
implement but also to formulate command decisions
pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for
Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')
We are no longer dealing with "the
risk" associated with "an accidental or
inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by
former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara ,
but with a military decision-making process which
provides military commanders, from the Commander
in Chief down to the geographical commanders with
discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear
weapons.
Moreover, because these "smaller"
tactical nuclear weapons have been
"reclassified" by the Pentagon as
"safe for the surrounding civilian
population", thereby "minimizing the
risk of collateral damage", there are no
overriding built-in restrictions which prevent
their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers
of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research,
February 2006) .
Once a decision to launch a military operation is
taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater
commanders have a degree of latitude. What this
signifies in practice is once the presidential
decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with
"theater" commanders can decide on the
targeting and type of weaponry to be used.
Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now
considered to be an integral part of the
battlefield arsenal. In other words, nukes have
become "part of the tool box", used in
conventional "war theaters".
Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran
An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on
Iran has been in "a state of readiness"
since June 2005. Essential military hardware to
wage this operation has been deployed.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered
USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency
plan", which "includes a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional
and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip
Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive
Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2
August 2005).
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for
overseeing and coordinating this military
deployment as well as launching the military
operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky,
Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006'
)[http://www.globalresearch.ca].
In January 2005 a significant shift in
USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. 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.
Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be
responsible for the launching of military
operations "using nuclear or conventional
weapons" in compliance with the Bush
administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both
categories of weapons would be integrated into a
"joint strike operation" under unified
Command and Control.
According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M.
Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists:
"The Defense Department is upgrading its
nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential
guidance and a transition in war planning from
the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan
of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more
flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's
adversaries. The new central strategic war plan
is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This
revised, detailed plan provides more flexible
options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter,
and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider
range of contingencies...
One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a
concept plan for the quick use of nuclear,
conventional, or information warfare capabilities
to destroy--preemptively, if
necessary--"time-urgent targets"
anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that
directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into
effect. As a result, the Bush administration's
preemption policy is now operational on
long-range bombers, strategic submarines on
deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."
The operational implementation of the Global
Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN)
8022, which now consists of "an actual plan
that the Navy and the Air Force translate into
strike package for their submarines and bombers,'
(Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).
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.)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran
started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation
of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004,
National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35
entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment
Authorization' was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the
presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the
deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the
Middle East war theater in compliance with
CONPLAN 8022.
In this regard, a recent press report published
in Yeni Safak (Turkey) suggests that the United
States is currently:
"[D]eploying B61-type tactical nuclear
weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit
Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to
an Israeli attack on its nuclear
facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US
is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against
Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005,
quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).
Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and
Nuclear Weapons
Israel is part of the military alliance and is
slated to play a major role in the planned
attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006
)
Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has
taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of
some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs
(WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement
order for BLU 109 [Bomb Live Unit] dates to
September 2004. In April 2005, Washington
confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100
of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb
GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters,
April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as
"a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional
munitions that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating
warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war
theater:
The Pentagon [stated] that ... the sale to Israel
of 500 BLU-109 warheads, [was] meant to
"contribute significantly to U.S. strategic
and tactical objectives." .
Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can
be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made
aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel
received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range
F-16Is from Washington, its main ally.
"Israel very likely manufactures its own
bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the
2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson,
editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told
Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear
warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv
confirmed that they were collaborating in
"the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon
cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads in
Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines."
(The Observer, 12 October 2003) . In more recent
developments, which coincide with the
preparations of strikes against Iran, Israel has
taken delivery of two new German produced
submarines "that could launch nuclear-armed
cruise missiles for a "second-strike"
deterrent." (Newsweek, 13 February 2006. See
also CDI Data Base)
France Endorses the Preemptive Nuclear
Doctrine
In January 2006, French President Jacques Chirac
announced a major shift in France's nuclear
policy.
Without mentioning Iran, Chirac intimated that
France's nukes should be used in the form of
"more focused attacks" against
countries, which were "considering" the
deployment of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
He also hinted to the possibility that tactical
nuclear weapons could be used in conventional
"war theaters", very much in line with
both US and NATO nuclear doctrine (See Chirac
shifts French doctrine for use of nuclear weapons
, Nucleonics Week: January 26, 2006).
The French president seems to have embraced the
US sponsored "War on Terrorism". He
presented nuclear weapons as a means to build
"a safer World" and combat terrorism.
Although Chirac has made no reference to the
preemptive use of nuclear weapons, his statement
broadly replicates the premises of the Bush
administration's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review ,
which calls for the use of tactical nuclear
weapons against ''rogue states" and
"terrorist non-state organizations".
Building a Pretext for a Preemptive Nuclear
Attack
The pretext for waging war on Iran essentially
rests on two fundamental premises, which are part
of the Bush administration's National Security
doctrine.
1. Iran's alleged possession of "Weapons of
Mass Destruction" (WMD), more specifically
its nuclear enrichment program.
2. Iran's alleged support to "Islamic
terrorists".
These are two interrelated statements which are
an integral part of the propaganda and media
disinformation campaign.
The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)"
statement is used to justify the
"pre-emptive war" against the
"State sponsors of terror", i.e.
countries such as Iran which allegedly possess
WMD.
"Second 9/11": Cheney's
"Contingency Plan"
While the "threat" of Iran's alleged
WMD is slated for debate at the UN Security
Council, 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". This "contingency
plan" to attack Iran uses the pretext of a
"Second 9/11" which has not yet
happened, to prepare for a major military
operation against Iran.
The contingency plan, which is characterized by a
military build up in anticipation of possible
aerial strikes against Iran, is in a "state
of readiness".
What is diabolical is that the justification to
wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a
terrorist attack on America, which has not yet
occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on
Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than
450 major strategic targets, including numerous
suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are
deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.
As in the case of Iraq, the response is not
conditional on Iran actually being involved in
the act of terrorism directed against the United
States. Several senior Air Force officers
involved in the planning are reportedly appalled
at the implications of what they are doing —
that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked
nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to
damage his career by posing any objections.
(Philip Giraldi, 'Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive
Nuclear War' , The American Conservative, 2
August 2005)
Are we to understand that US military planners
are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to launch
a military operation directed against Iran, which
is currently in a "state of readiness"?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan"
does not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The
Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that
Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that
punitive bombings would immediately be activated,
prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in
the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in
October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the
role of the Taliban government in support of the
9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that the
bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been
planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael
Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that
“9/11-type terrorist attacks” are
recognized in Cheney’s office and the
Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing
wars of aggression against any country selected
for that treatment by the regime and its
corporate propaganda-amplification
system.…" (Keefer, February 2006 )
Keefer concludes that "an attack on Iran,
which would presumably involve the use of
significant numbers of extremely
‘dirty’ earth-penetrating nuclear
bombs, might well be made to follow a dirty-bomb
attack on the United States, which would be
represented in the media as having been carried
out by Iranian agents" (Keefer, February
2006 )
The Battle for Oil
The Anglo-American oil companies are indelibly
behind Cheney's "contingency plan" to
wage war on Iran. The latter is geared towards
territorial and corporate control over oil and
gas reserves as well as pipeline routes.
There is continuity in US Middle East war plans,
from the Democrats to the Republicans. The
essential features of Neoconservative discourse
were already in place under the Clinton
administration. US Central Command's (USCENTCOM)
"theater" strategy in the mid-1990s was
geared towards securing, from an economic and
military standpoint, control over Middle East
oil.
"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]
, italics added)
Iran possesses 10 percent of global oil and gas
reserves, The US is the first and foremost
military and nuclear power in the World, but it
possesses less than 3 percent of global oil and
gas reserves.
On the other hand, the countries inhabited by
Muslims, including the Middle East, North Africa,
Central Asia, West and Central Africa, Malaysia,
Indonesia and Brunei, possess approximately 80
percent of the World's oil and gas reserves.
The "war on terrorism" and the hate
campaign directed against Muslims, which has
gained impetus in recent months, bears a direct
relationship to the "Battle for Middle East
Oil". How best to conquer these vast oil
reserves located in countries inhabited by
Muslims? Build a political consensus against
Muslim countries, describe them as
"uncivilized", denigrate their culture
and religion, implement ethnic profiling against
Muslims in Western countries, foster hatred and
racism against the inhabitants of the oil
producing countries.
The values of Islam are said to be tied into
"Islamic terrorism". Western
governments are now accusing Iran of
"exporting terrorism to the West" In
the reactionary words of Prime Minister Tony
Blair:
"There is a virus of extremism which comes
out of the cocktail of religious fanaticism and
political repression in the Middle East which is
now being exported to the rest of the world.
"We will only secure our future if we are
dealing with every single aspect of that problem.
Our future security depends on sorting out the
stability of that region… You can never say
never in any of these situations." (quoted
in the Mirror, 7 February 2006)
Muslims are demonized (reminiscent of
demonization against the Jews under the Nazi
Germany propaganda machine during World War II),
casually identified with "Islamic
terrorists", who are also described as
constituting a nuclear threat. In turn, the
terrorists are supported by Iran, an Islamic
Republic which threatens the "civilized
World" with deadly nuclear weapons (which it
does not possess). In contrast, America's
humanitarian "nuclear weapons will be
accurate, safe and reliable."
The World is at a Critical Cross-roads:
Implications of Iran as an ally of Russia and
China
It is not Iran which is a threat to global
security but the United States of America and
Israel.
In recent developments, Western European
governments --including the so-called
"non-nuclear states" which possess
nuclear weapons-- have joined the bandwagon. In
chorus, Western Europe and the member states of
the Atlantic alliance (NATO) have endorsed the
US-led military initiative against Iran.
The Pentagon's planned aerial attacks on Iran
involve "scenarios" using both nuclear
and conventional weapons. While this does not
imply the use of nuclear weapons, the potential
danger of a Middle East nuclear holocaust must,
nonetheless, be taken seriously. It must become a
focal point of the antiwar movement, particularly
in the United States, Western Europe, Israel and
Turkey.
It should also be understood that China and
Russia are (unofficially) allies of Iran,
supplying them with advanced military equipment
and a sophisticated missile defence system. It is
unlikely that China and Russia will take on a
passive position if and when the aerial
bombardments are carried out.
The new preemptive nuclear doctrine calls for the
"integration" of "defensive"
and "offensive" operations. Moreover,
the important distinction between conventional
and nuclear weapons has been blurred..
From a military standpoint, the US and its
coalition partners including Israel and Turkey
are in "a state of readiness."
Through media disinformation, the objective is to
galvanize Western public opinion in support of a
US-led war on Iran in retaliation for Iran's
defiance of the international community.
War propaganda consists in "fabricating an
enemy" while conveying the illusion that the
Western World is under attack by Islamic
terrorists, who are directly supported by the
Tehran government.
"Make the World safer", "prevent
the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by
terrorists", "implement punitive
actions against Iran to ensure the peace".
"Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue
states"...
Supported by the Western mass-media, a
generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia
directed against Muslims has unfolded,
particularly in Western Europe, which provides a
fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter
is upheld as a "Just War". The
"Just war" theory serves to camouflage
the nature of US war plans, while providing a
human face to the invaders.
Resistance to the Neo-fascist objectives of
neo-conservative elites
The "anti-war movement" is in many
regards divided and misinformed on the nature of
the US military agenda. Several non-governmental
organizations have placed the blame on Iran, for
not complying with the "reasonable
demands" of the "international
community". These same organizations, which
are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the
implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran.
To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign
of networking and outreach to inform people
across the land, nationally and internationally,
in neighbourhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools,
universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a
US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of
nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and
clear: Iran is not the threat. Even without the
use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments
could result in escalation, ultimately leading us
into a broader war in the Middle East.
Debate and discussion must also take place within
the Military and Intelligence community,
particularly with regard to the use of tactical
nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US
Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of
government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the
political and military actors in high office must
be challenged.
The corporate media also bears a heavy
responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored
war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged
for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.
For the past year, Washington has been waging a
"diplomatic arm twisting" exercise with
a view to enlisting countries into supporting of
its military agenda. It is essential that at the
diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East,
Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance
against the US military agenda.
Condoleezza Rice has trekked across the Middle
East, "expressing concern over Iran's
nuclear program", seeking the unequivocal
endorsement of the governments of the region
against Tehran. Meanwhile the Bush administration
has allocated funds in support of Iranian
dissident groups within Iran.
What is needed is to break the conspiracy of
silence, expose the media lies and distortions,
confront the criminal nature of the US
Administration and of those governments which
support it, its war agenda as well as its
so-called "Homeland Security agenda"
which has already defined the contours of a
police State.
Humanity is at the crossroads of the most serious
crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on
a military adventure, "a long war",
which threatens the future of humanity. It is
essential to bring the US war project to the
forefront of political debate, particularly in
North America and Western Europe. Political and
military leaders who are opposed to the war must
take a firm stance, from within their respective
institutions. Citizens must take a stance
individually and collectively against war.
About the author
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, [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.
Click on
"comments" below to read or post
comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the
story. We encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not include personal
information such as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal
attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy
and use this link to
notify us if
you have concerns about a comment. We’ll
promptly review and remove any inappropriate
postings.
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
