PREFACE

Phony intelligence was created and fed into the news chain with a view to justif
ying the invasion of Iraq.
The balance-sheet of lies and fabricated intelligence presented in this selectio
n of articles provides detailed and overwhelming evidence.
We have included news reports dating back to 2002, background analysis, commenta
ry, leaked intelligence documents and transcripts, secret memos and the reports
by weapons inspectors.
The collection which is intended to provide key references, also addresses a num
ber of important issues, which have been shoved under the carpet, including the
circumstances of David Kelly's death, plagiarism in the drafting of intelligence
documents, the fabricated biochemical terror threats, etc.
War Criminal in High Office
The implications are far-reaching: those in high office who ordered "the intelli
gence and facts [to be] fixed around the policy" are responsible for war crimes
under national and international law.
Despite the public outcry, particularly in Britain, there has been no visible sh
ift in the war and national security agendas. Quite the opposite: both President
Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been re-elected to high office under the sta
mp of parliamentary democracy. The war agenda has remained unscathed, with more
than 400 billion dollars allocated in the US to defense. Moreover, the United Na
tions is directly collaborating with the US-led occupation of Iraq and Afghanist
an, in blatant violation of its own charter.
In fact, most of the major political actors, behind the fake intelligence dossie
r, including George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack S
traw, John Negroponte, Condoleeza Rice, etc. are still in high office.
Critical Juncture in Our History
We are at a critical juncture in our history. Duly elected war criminals legitim
ately occupy positions of authority which enable them to decide "who are the cri
minals", when in fact they are the criminals.
This fake legitimacy gives them carte blanche. It enables them to proceed withou
t encroachment to the next phase of the war in the Middle East.
It also provides them with a mandate to redefine the contours of the judicial sy
stem and the process of law enforcement under the guise of Homeland Security.
In other words, what we are dealing with is the criminalization of the State and
its various institutions including the criminalization of Justice.
The truth is twisted and turned upside down. State propaganda builds a consensus
within the Executive, the US Congress and the Military. This consensus is then
ratified by the Judicial, through a process of outright legal manipulation.
Putting the War Criminal behind Bars
The evidence detailed in this collection of articles and documents would be suff
icient to put the war criminals behind bars.
Yet in the eyes of a large section of US public opinion, the issue of fake intel
ligence is casually dismissed: "it was all for a good cause", which consisted in
fighting the "war on terrorism" and ensuring the security of Americans.
Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions". Military occupation an
d the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". In the US, a de fac
to consensus in favor of war crimes permeates the US Congress and the Judicial.
The consensus is also endorsed by the corporate establishment.
In turn, supported by the mainstream media, war crimes are no longer recognized
as such. They have been re-categorized as a means to fighting "evil terrorists"
in what is described as a "clash of civilizations". Western public opinion has t
hus become accustomed to dismissing the lies and war crimes as inconsequential.
War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into su
pporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being".
War is given a humanitarian mandate. Media disinformation has instilled within t
he consciousness of Americans, that somehow the lies are acceptable and that the
issue of phony intelligence regarding WMD can be disregarded.
The use of torture, the existence of concentration camps, extra judicial assassi
nations, all of which are happening, are no longer being concealed. Quite the op
posite they are presented as "acceptable" and perfectly "legit" in the context o
f an effective war on "Islamic terrorists".
Under these circumstances, war criminals in high office within the State and the
Military no longer need to camouflage their crimes.
Realities are turned upside down. The derogation of civil liberties --in the con
text of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to
providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.
And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" and "Weapons of Mas
s Destruction" statements, which continue to circulate profusely in the news cha
in, are upheld as the basis for an understanding of World events.
In other words, the legitimacy of the war criminals is no longer questioned. A s
ense of righteousness prevails.
America's global war agenda is firmly established, beyond the premises of the pr
e-emptive war doctrine as a means to spreading democracy and the "free market".
New National Defense Strategy: From "Rogue States" to "Unstable Nations"
In March 2005, the Pentagon released a major document, entitled "The National De
fense Strategy of the United States of America" which broadly sketches Washingto
n's agenda for global military domination. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar20
05/d20050318nds2.pdf
While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the administration's "preemptive" war
doctrine as outlined in the Project of the New American Century (PNAC), it goes
much further in setting the contours of Washington's global military agenda.
Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military action as a means of "sel
f defense" against countries categorized as "hostile" to the US, the new Pentago
n doctrine has gone one step further. It now envisages the possibility of milita
ry intervention against countries, which do not visibly constitute a threat to t
he security of the American homeland.
It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond the weaker notion of
"preemptive" and "defensive" actions, where military operations are launched ag
ainst a "declared enemy" with a view to "preserving the peace" and "defending Am
erica". The document explicitly acknowledges America's global military mandate,
beyond regional war theaters. This mandate also includes military operations dir
ected against so-called "failed states" or "unstable nations", which are not hos
tile to the US. Needless to say, that in the case of an unstable nation, fake in
telligence on WMD will no longer be required to demonstrate that a country const
itutes a threat. A military operation can be launched if the country is categori
zed by Washington as an "unstable nation. And already, a list of 25 unstable nat
ions or failed states has been drawn up by the newly created Office of Reconstru
ction and Stabilisation .
The 2005 National Defense Strategy (NDS) consists in "enhancing U.S. influence a
round the world", through increased troop deployments and a massive buildup of A
merica's advanced weapons systems. From a broad military and foreign policy pers
pective, it constitutes an imperial design, which supports US corporate interest
s Worldwide.
The Next Phase of the War
The existence of fake intelligence to justify US-UK war plans, has not weakened
the war agenda. Nor does it ensure that disinformation will not used by politici
ans to justify the next phase of the war.
In fact, fake intelligence has already been created and fed into the news chain
to justify the bombing of Iran which is slated to be implemented as a joint US-I
sraeli operation.
Meanwhile, in the US, Britain and Canada, the Homeland Security apparatus is bei
ng further developed, leading to the militarisation of civilian institutions and
the derogation of Constitutional government.
The World is at an important crossroads.
The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens t
he 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 C
old War.
Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's participation, whic
h 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.
Reversing the Tide of War
High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military and t
he US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold an illegal war agenda.
One can therefore expect that war criminals in high office will repress any form
of dissent which questions the legitimacy of the war in Iraq and/or its extensi
on into Iran. In this regard, the anti terrorist legislation is eventually inten
ded to be used in a cohesive way against the anti-war and civil rights movements
.
Reversing the tide of war cannot be achieved through a narrow process of regime
change in America.
It is not sufficient to unseat elected politicians and elect a new government. T
hose in the seat of political authority are instruments, they are power brokers,
on behalf of the oil companies, the military industrial complex and the Wall St
reet financial establishment, which ultimately call the shots on US foreign poli
cy.
Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. What is required is a grass r
oots network, a mass movement at national and international levels, which challe
nges not only the legitimacy of the main military and political actors, but the
broad structures of the New World Order.
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 burg
eoning police state must be dismantled.
The corporate sponsors of war and war crimes must also be targeted including the
oil companies, the defense contractors, the financial institutions and the corp
orate media, which has become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.
Michel Chossudovsky, 22 May 2005.
I PHONY INTELLIGENCE ON
IRAQ'S "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"
20 Lies about the War, Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker,
Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case
for war.
More lies are being used in the aftermath
Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence, Andrew Buncombe and Marie
Woolf,
The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq was seeking "significant quant
ities of uranium from Africa" - based on faked documents provided by the Italian
intelligence services - should not have been included in President Bush's speec
h two months prior to the war
Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle? William Hughes,
"The shifty Perle, the Mother of all Neocons, also predicted, like former Defens
e Department official, Ken Adelman, that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a 'cak
ewalk!' .."
Phony Intelligence: Like Iraq, CIA also Exaggerated Soviet Nuclear Threat during
Cold War, Jason Leopold,
Two years ago the Central Intelligence Agency released reams of intelligence doc
uments on the former Soviet Union that had been classified for nearly 30 years.
The findings were damning: the CIA for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated th
e nuclear threat the communist country posed to the world.
The faltering WMD Casus Belli: ''Mobile lies" , Imad Khadduri,
As the swelter of anger bubbles from the machination of misinformation that led
to the faltering WMD casus belli for invading Iraq, the retreat and half-baked e
xcuses of Bush, Blair, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell further expose the sharp edg
e of their deceit
Powell Denies Intelligence Failure In Buildup To War, But Evidence Doesn’t Hold Up
, Jason Leopold,
it turns out that a bulk of the intelligence contained in the reports was just p
lain wrong, suggesting that either the intelligence was doctored to make a case
for war or, even worse, that a massive intelligence failure is rampant inside th
e CIA and other U.S. government agencies.
The Iraq War was always based on Shaky Evidence and Phony Intelligence, Jason Le
opold,
Prior to the war, nearly every major media outlet warned, based on reports from
the Pentagon, that Iraq’s cache of chemical and biological weapons could be used o
n U.S. and British troops sent in to Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Forged for heat of Iraq battle: Pentagon sent the man at the heart of a ‘fake docu
ments’ scandal to Iraq, Solomon Hughes,
None of these newspapers nor his Congressional supporters revealed that, seven y
ears previously, the IAEA concluded that documents linked to Hamza were crude fa
csimiles made by altering genuine Iraqi papers.
According to the IAEA: “The documents reveal errors in construction, suggesting po
or adaptation of authentic Iraqi documents”.
White House Silenced Experts who Questioned Iraq Intel Info Six Months before Wa
r, Jason Leopold,
Six months before the United States was dead-set on invading Iraq to rid the cou
ntry of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of nuclear
science warned officials in the Bush administration that intelligence reports s
howing Iraq was stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was unreliable and t
hat the country did not pose an imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle E
ast or the U.S.
But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration official
s in the White House because the Bush administration had already decided that mi
litary force would be used to overthrow the regime of Iraq’s President Saddam Huss
ein, interviews and documents have revealed
Blair s Mass Deception John Pilger
Tony Blair ordered an unprovoked invasion of another country on a totally false
pretext, and that lies and deceptions manufactured in London and Washington caus
ed the deaths of up to 55,000 Iraqis, including 9,600 civilians.
Consider for a moment those who have paid the price for Blair s and Bush s actio
ns, who are rarely mentioned in the current media coverage. Deaths and injury of
young children from unexploded British and American cluster bombs are put at 1,
000 a month. The effect of uranium weapons used by Anglo-American forces - a wea
pon of mass destruction - is such that readings taken from Iraqi tanks destroyed
by the British are so high that a British Army survey team wore white, full-bod
y radiation suits, face masks and gloves. Iraqi children play on and around thes
e tanks. British troops, says the Ministry of Defence, "will have access to biol
ogical monitoring".
WeaponsGate: The Coming Downfall of Lying Regimes? Wayne Madsen,
Historians and scholars, who will look back on what turned the tide for a suppos
edly "popular" war president, will point to the self-described "cabal" whose lie
s brought about a credibility gap unseen in the United States since the days of
Watergate. In fact, Bush s "Weaponsgate" will be viewed as a more serious scanda
l than Watergate because 1) U.S. and allied military personnel were killed and i
njured as a result of the caper; 2) Innocent Iraqi civilians, including women an
d children, died in a needless military adventure; and 3) the political effects
of the scandal extended far beyond U.S. shores to the United Kingdom, Australia,
Spain, and other countries.
Eleventh hour lies mount as war approaches by Larry Chin
So unsavory is the Bush administration’s "intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefell
er, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is calling for the FB
I to investigate forged documents that the administration has used to justify wa
r on Iraq.
A growing number of former CIA agents are coming forward to accuse the Bush admi
nistration of cooking the intelligence books... to support its case for war with
Iraq.
Will Tony Blair be forced to resign? Intelligence Fall-out over Iraq dossier, Ri
chard M. Barnett,
The accusations run in parallel with a growing belief among some expert observer
s that Britain and the United States had made the decision to invade Iraq more t
han a year ago and that everything emanating from both The White House and Downi
ng Street since then has been designed purely to hide that fact from the media a
nd to hoodwink the voters on both sides of the Atlantic.
Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9/11, Jason Leopold,
On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp David with President Bush, Rumsfe
ld and others in the Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed with Presi
dent Bush the prospects of launching an attack against Iraq, for no apparent rea
son other than a “gut feeling” Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, and there
was a debate “about what place if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist str
ategy.”
Chasing phantoms? The supposed reason why Iraq was invaded, Glen Rangwala,
General Tommy Franks, the war s commander, declared: "There is no doubt that the
regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction." Tony Blair exp
ressed the same certainty in his first major press conference of the war: "We ha
ve absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist." He
told Parliament during the debate that led to a vote for war that the idea that
Iraq had disarmed was "palpably absurd."
Over three weeks into the war, and with most of Iraq captured by Anglo-American
forces, the only reliable signs of illicit weapons in Iraq are the cluster bombs
that have been dropped from US jets.
The Mirage of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Imad Khadduri,
Even then one could discern that the sustained use of misinformation to support
the invasion of Iraq showed that the President s claims were not based on any fa
cts. I, having worked with Iraq s nuclear program for thirty years, reacted with
a series of articles expounding on the fact that Iraq had ceased its nuclear we
apon program at the start of the 1991 war. I refuted the claims and evidence mos
t famously, or infamously, branded by Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Sec
urity Council in February 2003 in which Powell argued that Iraq had rejuvenated
its nuclear weapon program after the Gulf War.
Criminal Case against Blair et al. for Crimes committed in the Invasion of Iraq,
James B. Thring
Therefore a criminal case is being brought by the Barrister Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani
against Blair et al. for crimes committed in the invasion of Iraq. It will begin
with a Judicial Review of the Attorney General’s refusal to consent, leading to h
is potential indictment
Colin Powell s accusations at the UN: Who is behind the "Terrorist Network" in N
orthern Iraq, Baghdad or Washington ? Michel Chossudovsky,
Secretary of State Powell in his February 5 address to the United Nations Securi
ty Council accused Saddam Hussein of collaborating with Osama bin Laden s Al Qae
da. Powell accused Baghdad of supporting Ansar al-Islam, a "deadly terrorist net
work" based in the ethnic Kurd controlled region of Northern Iraq.
Why Bush Wants to Ban UN Arms Inspectors from Iraq Steve Moore
Saddam Hussein co-operated with the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq far more than
President George Bush is prepared to do. Apparently Hussein had nothing to hide
in the last round of inspections, but this raises the question: What does Bush h
ave to hide?
Where are all those WMDs that were the pretense for this war? Michael Moore spea
ks out against the War
The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of the world, "Don t Mess wi
th Texas - If You Got What We Want, We re Coming to Get It!" This is not the tim
e for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful America to be quiet. Make you
r voices heard. Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our country.
The Road to Coverup is the Road to Ruin, Letter of Senator Robert Byrd to Presid
ent Bush,
These are the President s words. He said that Saddam Hussein is "seeking a nucle
ar bomb." Have we found any evidence to date of this chilling allegation? No.
II OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND SECRET MEMOS
Document: Secret Downing Street Memorandum; Invasion of Iraq: Secret UK Governme
nt Memo Reveals that "the Intelligence and Facts were fixed"
C [Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a percept
ible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted
to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terro
rism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing mat
erial on the Iraqi regime s record. There was little discussion in Washington of
the aftermath after military action.
Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq Intelligence Juan Cole
[C head of MI-6] Dearlove s report makes it clear that Bush had already decided
absolutely on a war already the previous month, and that he had managed to give
British intelligence the firm impression that he intended to shape the intellige
nce to support such a war.
Why would it even be necessary to turn the intelligence analysts into "weasels"
who would have to tell Bush what he wanted to hear?
It was necessary because the "justification" of the "conjunction" of Weapons of
Mass Destruction and terrorism was virtually non-existent.
Intelligence Fiasco: Text of Memorandum to President Bush by former US Intellige
nce Officials,
We write to express deep concern over the growing mistrust and cynicism with whi
ch many, including veteran intelligence professionals inside and outside our mov
ement, regard the intelligence cited by you and your chief advisers to justify t
he war against Iraq.
Proof Bush Fixed The Facts, Ray McGovern
Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would see those words in black and w
hite—and beneath a SECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in Veteran Intel
ligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been saying that the CIA and its Br
itish counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries leaders to "fix facts"
to "justify" an unprovoked war on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greet
ed with stares of incredulity.
Blair Planned Iraq War from Start Michael Smith
Inside Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some of his senior ministers and a
dvisers for a pivotal meeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am on Jul
y 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion began and long before the public wa
s told war was inevitable. The discussion that morning was highly confidential.
As minutes of the proceedings, headed “Secret and strictly personal — UK eyes only”, s
tate: “This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It sh
ould be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.”
Secret Document: Report of Britain s Attorney General confirms that the War on I
raq was Illegal
if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likel
y to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". Th
e legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next
week or so, eg, the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to a
chieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at
that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the
time.
Official Transcript: Dr David Kay s Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Commi
ttee US Senate,
Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself
here.
Senator Kennedy knows very directly. Senator Kennedy and I talked on several occ
asions prior to the war that my view was that the best evidence that I had seen
was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction.
(...)
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most d
isturbing.
(...)
I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficie
ntly intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of depl
oyed militarized chemical and biological weapons there.
CIA Intelligence Reported Seven Months Before 9/11: Iraq posed No Threat to US,
Jason Leopold,
Seven months before September 11, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet, testified bef
ore Congress that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to othe
r countries in the Middle East
NSA Memorandum: Dirty Tricks, Text of "Secret" NSA Memorandum to "mount a surge.
..directed at UNSC members (minus US and GBR of course)"
"The Agency [National Security Agency] is mounting a surge particularly directed
at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course)... [the
Agency envisages] "a QRC [Quick Reaction Capability] surge effort to revive/ cre
ate efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea"
CIA/MI6 Coverup, Analysis of "Sensitive" document: The interview with Hussein Ka
mel, Glen Rangwala, 28 Feb
Kamel s statement casts into new light the claims made by the Iraqi government t
hat it destroyed its non-conventional weapons in the period immediately after th
e end of the Gulf War.
This topic remains highly potent, with Hans Blix declaring that
"[o]ne of three important questions before us today is how much might remain und
eclared and intact from before 1991" (statement of 27 January 2003 to the Securi
ty Council).
If Kamel is to be taken as seriously as the UK and US administrations have previ
ously held him to be, then his claim that "[a]ll weapons - biological, chemical,
missile, nuclear were destroyed" should be taken seriously.
FBI called to investigate forged documents used to justify war on Iraq: Eleventh
Hour Lies mount as War approaches, Larry Chin
So unsavory is the Bush administration’s "intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefell
er, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is calling for the FB
I to investigate forged documents that the administration has used to justify wa
r on Iraq.
Document: Full text of UN Weapons Inspector s briefing to the UN Security Counc
il, 14 Feb 2003, Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix,
Document: Consult original UNSCOM/IAEA "Sensitive" Document
III THE NIGER INTELLIGENCE STING
The Niger Uranium Intelligence Sting , IRNA,
A British professor of theoretical physics suggested Tuesday that the raging con
troversy over intelligence claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore f
rom Niger is meaningless.
Wolfowitz Instructed White House to Use Iraq/Uranium Reference in President s St
ate of the Union Address, Jason Leopold
A Pentagon committee led by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, adv
ised President Bush to include a reference in his January State of the Union add
ress about Iraq trying to purchase 500 tons of uranium from Niger to bolster the
case for war in Iraq, despite the fact that the CIA warned Wolfowitz’s committee
that the information was unreliable, according to a CIA intelligence official an
d four members of the Senate’s intelligence committee who have been investigating
the issue.
Niger and Iraq: the War s biggest Lie? Neil McKay,
Some time after the Iraqi ambassador s trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence s
ervice came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger
uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the B
ritish to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . The forgeries were then
used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congre
ss and Parliament into supporting war
Italian Spy Discusses Own Role in Iraq-Niger Traffic Hoax , Interview with Itali
an former SID Defense Intelligence Service agent Rocco Martino
The hoax began one day when a Nigerian (as published) Embassy source who had pro
ven to be reliable on previous occasions and who had contacts also with the coll
aborator of a SISMI (Intelligence and Military Security Service) aide, passed on
to me a whole lot of information.
IV THE PLAGIARIZED INTELLIGENCE REPORT
British Intelligence Iraq Dossier Relied on Recycled Academic Articles, Glen Ran
gwala, 11 Feb.
A close textual analysis suggests that the UK authors had little access to first
-hand intelligence sources and instead based their work on academic papers, whic
h they selectively distorted. Some of the papers used were considerably out of d
ate. This leads the reader to wonder about the reliability and veracity of the D
owning Street document
Point by point Refutation of Sec.Colin Powell s Presentation Concerning Iraq, Gl
en Rangwala,
Part of Colin Powell s Address to UN was plagiarized. It was copied and pasted f
rom a website!
The government s carefully coordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing
hit after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.
WMDs and Osama: Colin Powell s Mea Culpa
Transcript of Colin Powell s Presentation to the UN Security Council, 5 Feb 2003

V FAKE BI0CHEMICAL TERROR ALERTS AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR

British Government Ordered Shutdown Of Fake Ricin Story , Propaganda Matrix
The British government has ordered a D-notice clampdown on details relating to t
he ricin terror ring story. Inside sources from the Guardian newspaper in London
have confirmed that the reason the article The ricin ring that never was, was
removed from its website was due to a direct order from the government. Several
other websites worldwide have also removed the article.
What s next? Are the government going to create a Ministry of Truth and employ W
inston Smith to change past newspaper articles and dispose of unflattering truth
s down the memory hole?
The Truth About the "Ricin Cell": There was No Ricin and No Cell, Milan Rai
We know now that there was no ricin, and no "cell". One man experimented with po
isons -- showing no signs of preparing to use them in this country. The "chemica
l weapon" was not lethal, but merely irritating to the skin.
Ricin plot: London and Washington used plot to strengthen Iraq war push , Richar
d Norton Taylor
War Propaganda Michel Chossudovsky
Military planners in the Pentagon are acutely aware of the central role of war p
ropaganda. Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear and
disinformation campaign (FDC) has been launched. The blatant distortion of the
truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of information is an integr
al part of war planning
It is the Bush Administration, rather than Baghdad, which is supporting Al Qaeda
: Fabricating an Enemy Michel Chossudovsky
In the months leadinh up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush Administra
tion and its indefectible British ally have multiplied the "warnings" of future
Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. The enemy has to appear genuine: thousands of news s
tories and editorials linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government were planted in
the news chain.
FBI points finger at the CIA: Terror Alert based on Fabricated Information
The false terror attack is part of a string of fabricated stories, released afte
r Colin Powell s address at the UN Security Council on 5 February.
From Afghanistan to Iraq: Transplanting CIA Engineered Terrorism, Kurt Nimmo
Bush and the CIA want to make darn sure Iraq becomes and remains the locus of te
rrorism for the foreseeable future. It has conveniently replaced Afghanistan as
the epicenter of Islamic Evil
Tom Ridge s Mea Culpa: The Code Orange Terror Alerts were based on Fake Intellig
ence by Michel Chossudovsky,
An Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, two days after Colin P
owell s flopped presentation on Iraq s alleged weapons of mass destruction to th
e UN Security Council. It was applied specifically to galvanize US public opinio
n in favor of the invasion of Iraq
After leaving his position at Homeland Security, Tom Ridge acknowledged that the
post 9/11 terror alerts used as a pretext to invade Iraq were often based on "f
limsy evidence" and that he had been pressured by the CIA to raise the threat le
vel.
VI POLITICAL ASSASSINATION:
THE DAVID KELLY AFFAIR
Suicide or Murder? The Dr. David Kelly Affair by Steve Moore
Dr. David Kelly was found dead on July 18, 2003 just three days after testifying
at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament regarding Tony Blair’s
fabricated intelligence "spin" concerning Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. The Hutton
Commission Report is a not only a Whitewash, which allows Tony Blair to demand
apologies, it is a cover-up on the causes of David Kelly s death.
Manipulating Pathologic Evidence: The David Kelly Story: Turning Murder into Sui
cide by Rowena Thursby
When the slant put on the reporting of a case almost guarantees a suicide "verdi
ct", it is important to focus on the players who seed this interpretation
David Kelly Death - paramedics query verdict by Anthony Barnett
The Hutton inquiry found that the scientist caught in the storm over the sexed
up Iraq dossier committed suicide. Now, for the first time, the experienced amb
ulance crew who were among the first on the scene tell of their doubts about the
decision.
No Inquest for Dr. Kelly by Rowena Thursby
The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, implies that the lack of "fresh evidence" does n
ot warrant re-opening the inquest. However lack of fresh evidence is not the rea
l problem here.
Operation Rockingham: A Secret Operation of British Intelligence by Rowena Thurs
by
"Operation Rockingham cherry-picked intelligence. It received hard data, but had
a preordained outcome in mind. It only put forward a small percentage of the fa
cts when most were ambiguous or noted no WMD... It became part of an effort to m
aintain a public mindset that Iraq was not in compliance with the inspections. T
hey had to sustain the allegation that Iraq had WMD [when] Unscom was showing th
e opposite."
VII RETROSPECTIVE ON YUGOSLAVIA:
CONFIRMATION INTELLIGENCE WAS ALSO FAKE
Confirmed by German Network TV: German Intelligence and the CIA supported Al Qae
da sponsored Terrorists in Yugoslavia
Both the CIA and German intelligence (BND) supported the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA), a terrorist organization with links to Al Qaeda.
The activities of this terrorist organization on the ground, in Kosovo, provided
NATO and the US with the pretext to intervene on humanitarian grounds, claiming
that the Serb authorities had committed human rights violations against ethnic
Albanians, when in fact the NATO sponsored KLA was involved in terrorist acts on
behalf of NATO, which triggered a response from the Serb police and military.
Kosovo - the site of a genocide that never was John Pilger
Kosovo - the site of a genocide that never was - is now a violent "free market"
in drugs and prostitution. What does this tell us about the likely outcome of th
e Iraq war?
Muted by the evidence of the Anglo-American catastrophe in Iraq, the "humanitari
an" war party ought to be called to account for its forgotten crusade in Kosovo,
the model for Blair s "onward march of liberation". Just as Iraq is being torn
apart by the forces of empire, so was Yugoslavia, the multi-ethnic state that un
iquely rejected both sides in the cold war.
Revelations of Russian General: US and NATO had Advanced Plans to Bomb Yugoslavi
a , 25 Nov
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics and International Development at t
he University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization
. He is the author of a forthcoming book entitled: America s "War on Terrorism"
This E-Report is published as a service to our Global Research members. We kindl
y request Readers of this Special Report to either become A Member of Global Res
earch , or to make a modest contribution in the form of a donation.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the above articles are the sole responsibilit
y of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research
on Globalization.
Email this article to a friend
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants p
ermission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or
any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title a
re not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink add
ress of the original CRG article must be indicated. The author s copyright note
must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other
forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not alw
ays been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such mate
rial available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to
advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The ma
terial on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wis
h to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must reques
t permission from the copyright owner.
To express your opinion on on or more of the articles in this collection, join t
he discussion at Global Research s News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION. Copyright of individual articles
belongs to the authors 2005.
Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on
Iran
Part II The Military Road Map
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 13, 2010
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
0diggsdigg
To consult Part I of this essay click below
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
Part I: Global Warfare
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran
started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From th
e outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and
Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. US military sources intimated tha
t an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to
the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli
attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening
days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )
"Theater Iran Near Term"
Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term", simulat
ions of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 "when modelers and intellig
ence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning larg
e-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 Apri
l 2006).
The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shoc
k and Awe" Blitzkrieg:
"The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "Theater Iran Near Term," was coupled with a
mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missil
e force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the s
ame time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strik
e war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of thi
s will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against
Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining bo
th near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of
a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through pos
twar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post,
16 April 2006)
Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplate
d: "The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and
spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Ad
miral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized pla
ns under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, February 19
, 2007)
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Di
ck Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" of a large scale
military operation directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the go
vernment in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre
-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
"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 strateg
ic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sit
es. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be ta
ken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Ira
q, 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 th
ey are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one i
s prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, Deep
Background,The American Conservative August 2005)
The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of mil
itary planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater pl
ans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the state
d strategic objective:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President
s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman s National Military Strateg
y (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command s theater strat
egy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rog
ue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interes
ts, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment i
s designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on e
ither Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-fo
cused. 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, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.c
om/37gafu9)
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. Accor
ding to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon s military ro
ad-map consisted of a sequence of countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [inc
ludes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Cla
rk states the following:
"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior militar
y staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going agai
nst Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a fiv
e-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginn
ing with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret
2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack
against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does no
t have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against Ira
n formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of lar
ge scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one
coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost
an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel wou
ld require a "green light" from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism" which wou
ld unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed aga
inst Israel.
In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option
of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led milita
ry operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack --although led in close l
iaison with the Pentagon and NATO-- would be presented to public opinion as a un
ilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, i
n the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a v
iew to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military c
ooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be "obligated" to "defend Isra
el" against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush s second term, (f
ormer) Vice President Dick Cheney 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 involvem
ent and without us putting pressure on them "to do it" (See Michel Chossudovsky,
Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to
Cheney:
"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 dest
ruction 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," (Dick Che
ney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)
Commenting the Vice President s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbig
niew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: C
heney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America s behalf and "do it" f
or us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; i
t s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange paralle
l statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it an
d in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encourageme
nt for the Israelis to do it."
What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Ir
an, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Def
ense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their
Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets in
side Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be pl
anned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.
An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, p
articularly with regard to Israel s air defense system, which since January 2009
is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unu
sually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a B
roader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)
Israel s X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support
has "integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-b
ased] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterra
nean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors."
(Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather tha
n Israel controls the air defense system: This is and will remain a U.S. rada
r system, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. So this is not something we a
re giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely requir
e U.S. personnel on-site to operate. " (Quoted in Israel National News, January
9, 2009).
The US military oversees Israel s Air Defense system, which is integrated into t
he Pentagon s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against
Iran without Washington s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called "Green
Light" legislation in the US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under Ho
use Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:
"The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleag
ues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of m
ilitary force.” ... “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israe
l. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult are
a.”’ (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mulle
n Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global R
esearch, August 10, 2010)
In practice, the proposed legislation is a "Green Light" to the White House and
the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponso
red war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also s
erves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in respons
e to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on
the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor
"incident" could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation a
gainst Iran.
Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first t
arget of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the v
ictims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, i
n this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by
the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquart
ers (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the r
egional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in
Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map
below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf an
d the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and deci
sion making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as "partn
er nations" is integrated into a global military design including the weaponizat
ion of space.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global
strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military ja
rgon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the mis
sions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; G
lobal Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global S
trike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
USSTRATCOM s responsibilities include: "leading, planning, & executing strategic
deterrence operations" at a global level, "synchronizing global missile defense
plans and operations", "synchronizing regional combat plans", etc. USSTRATCOM i
s the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed
against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integ
ration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass dest
ruction." (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, Janua
ry 3, 2006).
What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, includ
ing the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Ce
ntral Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.
Map: US Central Command s Area of Jurisdiction
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and
Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.
S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capab
ility for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventiona
l weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations
pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe,
Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global St
rike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)
Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endor
sed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previou
s administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administratio
n confirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran"
for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nucl
ear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threa
t - IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimate
d that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attac
k on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran
with tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enoug
h to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have b
een built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tippe
d bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and i
f the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed: Israe
l plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea ar
e consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the us
e of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative"
nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a me
ans to combating "Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in
Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slat
ed to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America s "war on Terr
orism" alongside conventional weapons.
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a c
redible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic i
s that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-
scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the
threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapon
s are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them mor
e effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Researc
h Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapon
s (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.
11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.
 The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. or Guided Bo
mb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker
buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO
112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris
) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons
against Iran, Israel s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bom
bs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel s Jeric
ho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be
within reach.
Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27

B61 bunker buster bomb

Radiactive Fallout
The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by
US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large a
rea of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to buildin
g peace and preventing "collateral damage". Iran s nonexistent nuclear weapons a
re a threat to global security, whereas those of the US and Israel are instrumen
ts of peace" harmless to the surrounding civilian population".
"The Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran
Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,50
0-pound "monster weapon" nicknamed the "mother of all bombs" The GBU-43/B or Mas
sive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized "as the most powerful non-nu
clear weapon ever designed" with the the largest yield in the US conventional ar
senal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq
war theater. According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had ad
vised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the "mot
her of all bombs" was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports t
hat it had been used in Iraq).
The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to us
e the "Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be "ideally
suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran" (
Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). T
he truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would res
ult in extremely large civilian casualties. It is a conventional "killing machin
e" with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.
The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost
of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs
of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 st
ealth bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in
relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page "reprogramming me
mo" which included the following instructions:
"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strik
e hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP [Mother of
All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent
Operational Need]." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Co
mmand (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has
responsibility over Iran)." (ABC News, op cit, emphasis added). To consult the
reprogramming request (pdf) click here
The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran s infrast
ructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes
and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger
GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in ter
ms of explosive capacity.
The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground n
uclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 pers
ons standing shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to
nose" (See Edwin Black, "Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Us
e Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs", Cutting Edge, September 21 200
9)
These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the
MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOA
B ("mother of all bombs ), is "mass destruction" and mass civilian casualties wi
th a view to instilling fear and despair.

"Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB)

GBU-57A/B Mass Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
MOAB: screen shots of test: explosion and mushroom cloud
State of the Art Weaponry: "War Made Possible Through New Technologies"
The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by S
tar Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications
and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the deve
lopment of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly differe
nt in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitz
krieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanc
ed weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weap
ons systems will be tested.
The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding
American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large sc
ale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:
"Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars".
This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial
superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces
to exploit the “revolution in military affairs", namely the implementation of "war
made possible through new technologies". (See Project for a New American Centur
y, Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf). The latter
consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine
based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replac
e the existing paradigms.
"Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a t
wo-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation
. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to
enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be
as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary
of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, f
or example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for man
y decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-based
weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has signif
icant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million grou
nd forces.
Electromagnetic Weapons
Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran s communications syste
ms, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and con
trol, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same fa
mily of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare
) developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel Chossud
ovsky, "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 200
4). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, te US Air Forc
e document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledgedthe military applications of weather m
odification technologies:
"Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security
and could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensive applicat
ions and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipita
tion, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communication
s through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the pro
duction of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologie
s which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adv
ersary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power." (Air Force 2025 Final Re
port, See also US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather i
n 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) at ww
w.fas.org).
Electromagnetic radiation enabling "remote health impairment" might also be envi
saged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational
Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological wea
pons by the US military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: "[A]dv
anced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." (PNA
C, op cit., p. 60).
Iran s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles
Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missile
s capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis
by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated t
o be used either pr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile a
ttack.
Range of Iran s Shahab Missiles. Copyright Washington Post
In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planni
ng in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile exper
t (quoted by Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching tec
hnology which the West had not known them to possess." (See Michel Chossudovsky,
Iran s "Power of Deterrence" Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowle
dged that "the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and
Europe within reach" (Debka, November 5, 2006)
According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel s anti-ballistic missile program,
"the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented... It was meant to mak
e an impression -- and it made an impression." (www.cnsnews.com 3 November 2006)
The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did no
t in any way modify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.
Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacke
d. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed
by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel s air defense system is therefore
crucial. US and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Ar
abia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.
Iran s Ground Forces
While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic ha
s significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to ackno
wledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, ai
r force) when compared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overst
retched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iran
ian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan
? The potential of the Resistance movement to US and allied occupation would ine
vitably be affected.
Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professio
nal soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Re
public of Iran Army - Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran s Navy and
52,000 in the air force. According to the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, "the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five br
anches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special
Forces)." According to the CISS, Iran s Basij paramilitary volunteer force contr
olled by the Revolutionary Guards "has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time
uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can b
e mobilized if need be" (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedi
a), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and se
veral million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq
.

US Military and Allied Facilties Surrounding Iran

For several years now Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises.
While its Air force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles ar
e fully operational. Iran s military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop c
oncentrations are currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan bord
ers, and within proximity of Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian
Gulf within proximity of US and allied military facilities in the United Arab E
mirates.
It is worth noting that in response to Iran s military build-up, the US has been
transferring large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gul
f including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
While Iran s advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and NATO, Ira
nian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition fo
rces in a conventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Irania
n ground troops and tanks in December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without
being confronted or challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territor
y in the East Maysan oil field.
Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran s military faci
lities, its communications systems, etc. through massive aerial bombing, using c
ruise missiles, conventional bunker buster bombs and tactical nuclear weapons, a
war with Iran, once initiated, could eventually lead into a ground war. This is
something which US military planners have no doubt contemplated in their simula
ted war scenarios.
An operation of this nature would result in significant military and civilian ca
sualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.
The expanded budget for the war in Afghanistan currently debated in the US Congr
ess is also intended to be used in the eventuality of an attack on Iran.
Within a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border into Iraq
and Afghanistan.
In turn, military escalation using nuclear weapons could lead us into a World Wa
r III scenario, extending beyond the Middle East Central Asian region.
In a very real sense, this military project, which has been on the Pentagon s dr
awing board for more than five years, threatens the future of humanity.
Our focus in this essay has been on war preparations. The fact that war preparat
ions are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply that these war plans w
ill be carried out.
The US-NATO-Israel alliance realizes that the enemy has significant capabilities
to respond and retaliate. This factor in itself has been crucial over the last
five years in the decision by the US and its allies to postpone an attack on Ira
n.
Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas NATO has
become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which co
nstitutes an alliance between Russia and China and a number of former Soviet rep
ublics has been significantly weakened.
The ongoing US military threats directed against China and Russia are intended t
o weaken the SCO and discourage any form of military action on the part of Iran
s allies in the case of a US NATO Israeli attack.
What are the countervailing forces which might prevent this war from occurring?
There are numerous ongoing forces at work within the US State apparatus, the US
Congress, the Pentagon and NATO.
The central force in preventing a war from occurring ultimately comes from the b
ase of society, requiring forceful antiwar action by hundred of millions of peop
le across the land, nationally and internationally.
People must mobilize not only against this diabolical military agenda, the autho
rity of the State and its officials must be also be challenged.
This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, press
ure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, village
s and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens as to the im
plications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed for
ces.
The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough. What is r
equired is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar netw
ork which challenges the structures of power and authority.
What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the le
gitimacy of war, a global people s movement which criminalizes war.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus

) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globali
zation (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The
New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contribu
tor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more th
an twenty languages. he can be reached at the globalresearch.ca website

Author s note: Dear Global Research Readers, kindly forward this text far and wi
de to friends and family, on internet forums, within the workplace, in your neig
hborhood, nationally and internationally, with a view to reversing the tide of w
ar. Spread the Word!
Related articles
Targeting Iran: Is the US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-09
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01
Global Military Agenda: U.S. Expands Asian NATO To Contain And Confront China
- by Rick Rozoff - 2010-08-07
Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented
- by Muriel Mirak-Weissbach - 2010-07-31
Part III
Reversing the Tide of War. Criminalizing War (forthcoming)

Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on
Iran
Part II The Military Road Map
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 13, 2010
To consult Part I of this essay click below
Preparing for World War III, Targeting Iran
Part I: Global Warfare
- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01
The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran
started in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From th
e outset, these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.
Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and
Syria as the next stage of “the road map to war”. US military sources intimated tha
t an aerial attack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to
the US "shock and awe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:
"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli
attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening
days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )
"Theater Iran Near Term"
Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term", simulat
ions of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 "when modelers and intellig
ence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning larg
e-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 Apri
l 2006).
The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shoc
k and Awe" Blitzkrieg:
"The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "Theater Iran Near Term," was coupled with a
mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missil
e force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the s
ame time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strik
e war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of thi
s will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against
Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining bo
th near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of
a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through pos
twar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post,
16 April 2006)
Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplate
d: "The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and
spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Ad
miral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerized pla
ns under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, February 19
, 2007)
In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Di
ck Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" of a large scale
military operation directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the go
vernment in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre
-emptive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state:
"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 strateg
ic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sit
es. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be ta
ken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Ira
q, 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 th
ey are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one i
s prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, Deep
 Background,The American Conservative August 2005)
The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of mil
itary planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater pl
ans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the state
d strategic objective:
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President
s National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman s National Military Strateg
y (NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command s theater strat
egy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rog
ue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interes
ts, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment i
s designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on e
ither Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM s theater strategy is interest-based and threat-fo
cused. 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, link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.c
om/37gafu9)
The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. Accor
ding to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon s military ro
ad-map consisted of a sequence of countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [inc
ludes]... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan." In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Cla
rk states the following:
"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior militar
y staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going agai
nst Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a fiv
e-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginn
ing with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (See Secret
2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
The Role of Israel
There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack
against Iran.
Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does no
t have a separate and distinct military agenda.
Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against Ira
n formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of lar
ge scale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one
coalition partner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost
an impossibility. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel wou
ld require a "green light" from Washington.
An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism" which wou
ld unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed aga
inst Israel.
In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option
of an initial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led milita
ry operation directed against Iran. The Israeli attack --although led in close l
iaison with the Pentagon and NATO-- would be presented to public opinion as a un
ilateral decision by Tel Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, i
n the eyes of World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a v
iew to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran. Under existing military c
ooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be "obligated" to "defend Isra
el" against Iran and Syria.
It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush s second term, (f
ormer) Vice President Dick Cheney 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 involvem
ent and without us putting pressure on them "to do it" (See Michel Chossudovsky,
 Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to
Cheney:
"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 dest
ruction 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," (Dick Che
ney, quoted from an MSNBC Interview, January 2005)
Commenting the Vice President s assertion, former National Security adviser Zbig
niew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: C
heney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America s behalf and "do it" f
or us:
"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; i
t s nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange paralle
l statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it an
d in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encourageme
nt for the Israelis to do it."
What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Ir
an, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the Def
ense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their
Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets in
side Iran. In practical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be pl
anned and coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.
An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support, p
articularly with regard to Israel s air defense system, which since January 2009
is fully integrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unu
sually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a B
roader Middle East War? Global Research, January 11,2009)
Israel s X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support
has "integrate[d] Israel’s missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-b
ased] detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterra
nean, Persian Gulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors."
(Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009,)
What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather tha
n Israel controls the air defense system: This is and will remain a U.S. rada
r system, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said. So this is not something we a
re giving or selling to the Israelis and it is something that will likely requir
e U.S. personnel on-site to operate. " (Quoted in Israel National News, January
9, 2009).
The US military oversees Israel s Air Defense system, which is integrated into t
he Pentagon s global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against
Iran without Washington s consent. Hence the importance of the so-called "Green
Light" legislation in the US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under Ho
use Resolution 1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:
"The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleag
ues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary” against Iran “including the use of m
ilitary force.” ... “We’ve got to get this done. We need to show our support for Israe
l. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult are
a.”’ (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mulle
n Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global R
esearch, August 10, 2010)
In practice, the proposed legislation is a "Green Light" to the White House and
the Pentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponso
red war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also s
erves as a justification to wage war with a view to defending Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in respons
e to alleged Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on
the border of Israel with Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor
"incident" could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation a
gainst Iran.
Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first t
arget of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the v
ictims of the machinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, i
n this regard, absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by
the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquart
ers (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the r
egional commands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in
Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map
below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf an
d the Diego Garcia military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and deci
sion making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as "partn
er nations" is integrated into a global military design including the weaponizat
ion of space.
Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global
strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military ja
rgon, it is slated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the mis
sions of Space Operations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; G
lobal Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global S
trike; and Strategic Deterrence.... "
USSTRATCOM s responsibilities include: "leading, planning, & executing strategic
deterrence operations" at a global level, "synchronizing global missile defense
plans and operations", "synchronizing regional combat plans", etc. USSTRATCOM i
s the lead agency in the coordination of modern warfare.
In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed
against Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integ
ration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass dest
ruction." (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, Janua
ry 3, 2006).
What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, includ
ing the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Ce
ntral Asian region would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.
Map: US Central Command s Area of Jurisdiction
Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran
Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and
Israel contemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.
S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capab
ility for rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventiona
l weapons. This announcement was made after the conduct of military simulations
pertaining to a US led nuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe,
Preemptive Nuclear War in a State of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global St
rike Capability, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)
Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endor
sed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previou
s administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administratio
n confirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran"
for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nucl
ear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threa
t - IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimate
d that it would use nukes in the case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attac
k on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn up its own "secret plans" to bomb Iran
with tactical nuclear weapons:
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enoug
h to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have b
een built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tippe
d bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and i
f the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed: Israe
l plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)
Obama s statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea ar
e consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the us
e of tactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.
Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative"
nuclear scientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a me
ans to combating "Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in
Iran. The low-yield nukes have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slat
ed to be used against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America s "war on Terr
orism" alongside conventional weapons.
"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as a c
redible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic i
s that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-
scale nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the
threat of nuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapon
s are less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them mor
e effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke Researc
h Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)
The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapon
s (Made in America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.
11), with an explosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb.
The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of the "conventional" BLU 113. or Guided Bo
mb Unit GBU-28. It can be delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker
buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO
112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris
) . While the US does not contemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons
against Iran, Israel s nuclear arsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bom
bs which are deployed and could be used in a war with Iran. Under Israel s Jeric
ho‐III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be
within reach.
Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27

B61 bunker buster bomb

Radiactive Fallout
The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by
US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large a
rea of the broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.
In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to buildin
g peace and preventing "collateral damage". Iran s nonexistent nuclear weapons a
re a threat to global security, whereas those of the US and Israel are instrumen
ts of peace" harmless to the surrounding civilian population".
"The Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran
Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,50
0-pound "monster weapon" nicknamed the "mother of all bombs" The GBU-43/B or Mas
sive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized "as the most powerful non-nu
clear weapon ever designed" with the the largest yield in the US conventional ar
senal. The MOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq
war theater. According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had ad
vised the government of Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the "mot
her of all bombs" was to be used against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports t
hat it had been used in Iraq).
The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to us
e the "Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be "ideally
suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran" (
Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). T
he truth of the matter is that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would res
ult in extremely large civilian casualties. It is a conventional "killing machin
e" with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.
The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost
of $58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs
of development and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 st
ealth bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in
relation to Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page "reprogramming me
mo" which included the following instructions:
"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strik
e hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP [Mother of
All Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent
Operational Need]." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Co
mmand (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has
responsibility over Iran)." (ABC News, op cit, emphasis added). To consult the
reprogramming request (pdf) click here
The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran s infrast
ructure and mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes
and monster conventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger
GBU-57A/B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in ter
ms of explosive capacity.
The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground n
uclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomb—longer than 11 pers
ons standing shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to
nose" (See Edwin Black, "Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Us
e Against Iran and North Korea Nuclear Programs", Cutting Edge, September 21 200
9)
These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of the
MOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe the MOA
B ("mother of all bombs ), is "mass destruction" and mass civilian casualties wi
th a view to instilling fear and despair.

"Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB)

GBU-57A/B Mass Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
MOAB: screen shots of test: explosion and mushroom cloud
State of the Art Weaponry: "War Made Possible Through New Technologies"
The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by S
tar Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications
and information systems. Given the advances in military technology and the deve
lopment of new weapons systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly differe
nt in terms of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitz
krieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use the most advanc
ed weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In all likelihood, new weap
ons systems will be tested.
The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled Rebuilding
American Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large sc
ale theater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:
"Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars".
This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperial
superpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces
to exploit the “revolution in military affairs", namely the implementation of "war
made possible through new technologies". (See Project for a New American Centur
y, Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf). The latter
consists in developing and perfecting a state of the art global killing machine
based on an arsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replac
e the existing paradigms.
"Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a t
wo-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation
. The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to
enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be
as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should be very wary
of making large investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, f
or example – that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of warfare for man
y decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)
The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-based
weapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has signif
icant conventional military capabilities including more than half a million grou
nd forces.
Electromagnetic Weapons
Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran s communications syste
ms, disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and con
trol, government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same fa
mily of weapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare
) developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel Chossud
ovsky, "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research, September 27, 200
4). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, te US Air Forc
e document AF 2025 explicitly acknowledgedthe military applications of weather m
odification technologies:
"Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security
and could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensive applicat
ions and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipita
tion, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improve communication
s through ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the pro
duction of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologie
s which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adv
ersary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power." (Air Force 2025 Final Re
port, See also US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather i
n 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) at ww
w.fas.org).
Electromagnetic radiation enabling "remote health impairment" might also be envi
saged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational
Weapons:, Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological wea
pons by the US military might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: "[A]dv
anced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." (PNA
C, op cit., p. 60).
Iran s Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles
Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missile
s capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis
by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated t
o be used either pr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile a
ttack.
Range of Iran s Shahab Missiles. Copyright Washington Post
In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planni
ng in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile exper
t (quoted by Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching tec
hnology which the West had not known them to possess." (See Michel Chossudovsky,
Iran s "Power of Deterrence" Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowle
dged that "the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and
Europe within reach" (Debka, November 5, 2006)
According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel s anti-ballistic missile program,
"the intensity of the military exercise was unprecedented... It was meant to mak
e an impression -- and it made an impression." (www.cnsnews.com 3 November 2006)
The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did no
t in any way modify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.
Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacke
d. Israel would be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed
by the Iranian government. The issue of Israel s air defense system is therefore
crucial. US and allied military facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Ar
abia, Afghanistan and Iraq could also be targeted by Iran.
Iran s Ground Forces
While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic ha
s significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to ackno
wledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, ai
r force) when compared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overst
retched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iran
ian ground forces were to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan
? The potential of the Resistance movement to US and allied occupation would ine
vitably be affected.
Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professio
nal soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Re
public of Iran Army - Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran s Navy and
52,000 in the air force. According to the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, "the Revolutionary Guards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five br
anches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special
Forces)." According to the CISS, Iran s Basij paramilitary volunteer force contr
olled by the Revolutionary Guards "has an estimated 90,000 active-duty full-time
uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and a total of 11 million men that can b
e mobilized if need be" (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran - Wikipedi
a), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and se
veral million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operating inside Iraq
.
Part II of a two part Series. Part I was entitled: War Propaganda
One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to «fabricate an enemy» . As anti-wa
r sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters,
doubts regarding the existence of this "outside enemy" must be dispelled.
As the date of the planned invasion of Iraq approaches, the Bush Administration
and its indefectible British ally have multiplied the "warnings" of future Al Qa
eda terrorist attacks. The enemy has to appear genuine: thousands of news storie
s and editorials linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government are planted in the n
ews chain. Colin Powell underscored this relationship in his presentation to the
Davos World Economic Forum in January. Iraq is casually presented in official s
tatements and in the media as "a haven for and supplier of the terror network":
"Evidence that is still tightly held is accumulating within the administration t
hat it is not a matter of chance that terror groups in the al Qaeda universe hav
e made their weapons of choice the poisons, gases and chemical devices that are
signature arms of the Iraqi regime."1
In this context, propaganda purports to drown the truth, and kill the evidence o
n how Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into "Enemy Number
One".
Meanwhile, "anti-terrorist operations" directed against Muslims, including arbit
rary mass arrests have been stepped up. In the US, emergency measures are contem
plated in the case of war. The corporate media is busy preparing public opinion.
 A «national emergency» is said to be justified because «America is under attack»:
« the U.S. and Western interests in the Western world have to be prepared for reta
liatory attacks from sleeper cells the second we launch an attack in Iraq.» 2
Defence of the Homeland
Emergency procedures are already in place. The Secretary of Homeland Defence -wh
ose mandate is to «safeguard the nation from terrorist attacks»-- has already been g
ranted the authority « to take control of a national emergency», implying the establ
ishment of de facto military rule. In turn, the Northern Command would be put in
charge of military operations in the US «war on terrorism » theatre.
The Smallpox Vaccination Program
In the context of these emergency measures, preparations for compulsory smallpox
vaccination are already under way in response to a presumed threat of a biologi
cal weapons attack on US soil. The vaccination program –which has been the object
of intense media propaganda-- would be launched with the sole purpose of creatin
g an atmosphere of panic among the population:
«A few infected individuals with a stack of plane tickets--or bus tickets, for tha
t matter--could spread smallpox infection across the country, touching off a pla
gue of large proportions …. It is not inconceivable that a North Korea or an Iraq
could retain smallpox in a hidden lab and pass the deadly agent on to terrorists
.»3
The hidden agenda is crystal clear. How best to discredit the anti-war movement
and maintain the legitimacy of the State? Create conditions, which instill fear
and hatred, present the rulers as "guardians of the peace", committed to weeding
out terrorism and preserving democracy. In the words of British Prime Minister
Tony Blair, echoing almost verbatim the US propaganda dispatches:
"’I believe it is inevitable that they will try in some form or other,… ‘I think we ca
n see evidence from the recent arrests that the terrorist network is here as it
is around the rest of Europe, around the rest of the world… The most frightening t
hing about these people is the possible coming together of fanaticism and the te
chnology capable of delivering mass destruction.’"4
Mass Arrests
The mass arrests of individuals of Middle Eastern origin since September 11 2001
on trumped up charges is not motivated by security considerations. Their main f
unction is to provide "credibility" to the fear and propaganda campaign. Each ar
rest, amply publicised by the corporate media, repeated day after day "gives a f
ace" to this invisible enemy. It also serves to drown the fact that Al Qaeda is
a creature of the CIA. "Enemy Number One" is not an enemy but an instrument.)
In other words, the Propaganda campaign performs two important functions.
First it must ensure that the enemy is considered a real threat.
Second, it must distort the truth, --i.e. it must conceal "the relationship" bet
ween this "fabricated enemy" and its creators within the military-intelligence a
pparatus.
In other words, the nature and history of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and the Islam
ic brigades since the Soviet-Afghan war must be suppressed because if it trickle
s down to the broader public, the legitimacy of the so-called "war on terrorism"
collapses like a deck of cards. And in the process, the legitimacy of the main
political and military actors is threatened.
The "9/11 Foreknowledge" Scandal
On 16 May 2002, the New York tabloids revealed that "President Bush had been war
ned of possible high jacking before the terror attacks" and had failed to act.5
The disinformation campaign was visibly stalling in the face of mounting evidenc
e of CIA-Osama links. For the first time since 9/11, the mainstream press had hi
nted to the possibility of a cover-up at the highest echelons of the US State ap
paratus.
FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, who blew the whistle on the FBI, played a key role in u
nleashing the crisis. Her controversial Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller poin
ted to the existence of "deliberate roadblocks" on the investigation of the Sept
ember 11 attacks:
"Minutes after the 9/11 attacks the SSA [David Frasca, Director of the Radical F
undamentalist unit in the FBI] said ‘this was probably all just a coincidence’ and w
e were to do nothing until we got their permission, because we might screw up so
mething else going on elsewhere in the country" 6
In response to an impending political crisis, the fear and disinformation campai
gn went into overdrive. The news chain was all of a sudden inundated with report
s and warnings of "future terrorist attacks". A carefully worded statement (visi
bly intended to instill fear) by Vice President Dick Cheney contributed to setti
ng the stage:
"I think that the prospects of a future attack on the U.S. are almost a certaint
y... It could happen tomorrow, it could happen next week, it could happen next y
ear, but they will keep trying. And we have to be prepared."7
What Cheney is really telling us is that our "intelligence asset", which we crea
ted, is going to strike again. Now, if this "CIA creature" were planning new ter
rorist attacks, you would expect that the CIA would be first to know about it. I
n all likelihood, the CIA also controls the so-called ‘warnings emanating from CI
A sources on "future terrorist attacks" in the US and around the World.
Propaganda’s Consistent Pattern
Upon careful examination of news reports on actual, "possible" or "future" terro
rist attacks, the propaganda campaign exhibits a consistent pattern. Similar con
cepts appear simultaneously in hundreds of media reports:
they refer to "reliable sources", a growing body of evidence --e.g. government o
r intelligence or FBI.
They invariably indicate that the terrorist groups involved have "ties to bin La
den" or Al Qaeda, or are "sympathetic to bin Laden",
The reports often points to the possibility of terrorist attacks, "sooner or lat
er" or "in the next two months".
The reports often raise the issue of so-called "soft targets", pointing to the l
ikelihood of civilian casualties.
They indicate that future terrorist attacks could take place in a number of alli
ed countries (including Britain, France, Germany) in which public opinion is str
ongly opposed to the US-led war on terrorism.
They confirm the need by the US and its allies to initiate "pre-emptive" actions
directed against these various terrorist organizations and/or the foreign gover
nments which harbour the terrorists.
They often point to the likelihood that these terrorist groups possess WMD inclu
ding biological and chemical weapons (as well as nuclear weapons). The links to
Iraq and "rogue states" (discussed in Part I) is also mentioned.
The warnings also include warnings regarding "attacks on US soil", attacks again
st civilians in Western cities.
They point to efforts undertaken by the police authorities to apprehend the alle
ged terrorists.
The arrested individuals are in virtually all cases Muslims and/or of Middle Eas
tern origin.
The reports are also used to justify the Homeland Security legislation as well a
s the "ethnic profiling" and mass arrests of presumed terrorists.
This pattern of disinformation in the Western media applies the usual catch phra
ses and buzz words. (See press excerpts below. The relevant catch phrases are in
dicated in italics):
"Published reports, along with new information obtained from U.S. intelligence a
nd military sources, point to a growing body of evidence that terrorists associa
ted with and/or sympathetic to Osama bin Laden are planning a significant attack
on U.S. soil.
Also targeted are allied countries that have joined the worldwide hunt for the r
adical Muslim cells hell-bent on unleashing new waves of terrorist strikes. … The
U.S. government s activation of antiterrorist forces comes as the FBI issued a w
arning Nov. 14 that a "spectacular" new terrorist attack may be forthcoming - so
oner rather than later. ...
Elsewhere, the Australian government issued an unprecedented warning to its citi
zens that al-Qaeda terrorists there might launch attacks within the next two mon
ths. 8
Although CIA Director George Tenet said in recent congressional testimony that "
an attempt to conduct another attack on U.S. soil is certain," a trio of former
senior CIA officials doubted the chance of any "spectacular" terror attacks on U
.S. soil.9
"Germans have been skittish since the terrorist attacks in the United States, fe
aring that their country is a ripe target for terrorism. Several of the hijacker
s in the Sept. 11 attacks plotted their moves in Hamburg.10
"On Dec. 18, a senior government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, b
riefed journalists about the ‘high probability’ of a terrorist attack happening ‘soone
r or later.’ … he named hotels and shopping centres as potential ‘soft targets’… The offic
ial also specifically mentioned: a possible chemical attack in the London subway
, the unleashing of smallpox, the poisoning of the water supply and strikes agai
nst "postcard targets" such as Big Ben and Canary Warf.
The "sooner or later" alert followed a Home Office warning at the end of Novembe
r that said Islamic radicals might use dirty bombs or poison gas to inflict huge
casualties on British cities. This also made big headlines but the warning was
quickly retracted in fear that it would cause public panic. 11
The message yesterday was that these terrorists, however obscure, are trying - a
nd, sooner or later, may break through London s defences. It is a city where ten
s of thousands of souls,… Experts have repeatedly said that the UK, with its bulli
sh support for the US and its war on terror, is a genuine and realistic target f
or terror groups, including the al- Qaeda network led by 11 September mastermind
Osama bin Laden.12
Quoting Margaret Thatcher: "Only America has the reach and means to deal with Os
ama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein or the other wicked psychopaths who will sooner
or later step into their shoes."13
According to a recent US State Department alert: "Increased security at official
US facilities has led terrorists to seek softer targets such as residential are
as, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, hotels, schools, outdoor recreation e
vents, resorts, beaches and planes."14
Actual Terrorist Attacks
To be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on uns
ubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occ
urrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Administration’s war pla
ns. Propaganda endorses the need to implement "emergency measures" as well as im
plement retaliatory military actions.
The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon’s assumptions. I
n fact it is an integral part of US military history.15 In fact in 1962, the Joi
nt Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods, t
o deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:
"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could devel
op a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities
and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful
wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document t
itled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation No
rthwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).
There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent
terrorist attacks. The latter were undertaken by organisations (or cells of the
se organisations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of a
utonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operat
ion. The «intelligence asset» is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It
is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence
sponsors.
The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they be
ing financed? What is the underlying network of ties?
A recent (2002) classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon «calls for the c
reation of a so-called « Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group » (P2OG), to launch
secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states
possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terror
ist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response" attacks by U.S
. forces.» 17
The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus
of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups
since the Cold War era. This « prodding of terrorist cells » under covert intelligen
ce operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups
linked to Al Qaeda.
Covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channelled
to various Islamic terrorist organisations through a complex network of interme
diaries and intelligence proxies. Moreover, numerous official statements, intell
igence reports confirm recent links (in the post Cold War era) between US milita
ry-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s)
, Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).18 The Republican Party Committee of the
US Congress in a 1997 report points to open collaboration between the US milita
ry and Al Qaeda operatives in the civil war in Bosnia.19 (See US Congress, 16 Ja
nuary 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html )
Ties to Al Qaeda and Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI)
It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, th
e terrorist organization is said to have "ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda". Thi
s in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda
is a creature of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is consi
dered relevant.
The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakist
an’s military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official source
s and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), som
e of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan’s ISI, without identifying th
e nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identif
ying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to
support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close tie
s to the CIA.
The Bali Bomb Attack (October 2002)
The Bali attack in the Kuta seaside resort resulted in close to 200 deaths, main
ly Australian tourists. The bomb attack was allegedly perpetrated by Jemaah Isla
miah, a group, which operates in several countries in South East Asia. Press rep
orts and official statements point to close ties between Jemaah Islamiah (JI) an
d Al Qaeda. The JI’s "operational leader" is Riduan Isamuddin, alias Hambali, a ve
teran of the Soviet-Afghan war, who was trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Acc
ording to a report by UPI:
"The [Soviet-Afghan] war provided opportunities for key figures of these groups,
who went to Afghanistan, to experience firsthand the glory of jihad. Many of th
e radicals detained in Singapore and Malaysia derived their ideological inspirat
ion from the activities of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and Pakistan" 20
What the report fails to mention is that the training of the Mujahideen in Afgha
nistan and Pakistan was a CIA sponsored initiative launched under President Jimm
y Carter in 1979, using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between.
JI’s links to Indonesia’s Military Intelligence
There are indications, that in addition to its alleged links to Al Qaeda, Jemaah
Islamiah also has links to Indonesia’s military intelligence, which in turn has l
inks to the CIA and Australian intelligence.
The links between JI and Indonesia’s Intelligence Agency (BIN) are acknowledged by
the International Crisis Group (ICG):
"This link [of JI to the BIN] needs to be explored more fully: it does not neces
sarily mean that military intelligence was working with JI, but it does raise a
question about the extent to which it knew or could have found out more about JI
than it has acknowledged." 21 (International Crisis Group, http://www.crisisweb
.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=845 , 2003)
The ICG, however, fails to mention that Indonesia’s intelligence apparatus has for
more than 30 years been controlled by the CIA.
In the wake of the October 2002 Bali bombing, a contradictory report emanating f
rom Indonesia’s top brass, pointed to the involvement of both the head of Indonesi
an intelligence General A. M. Hendropriyono as well as the CIA:
"The agency and its director, Gen. A. M. Hendropriyono, are well regarded by the
 United States and other governments. But there are still senior intelligence of
ficers here who believe that the C.I.A. was behind the bombing."22
In response to these statements, the Bush Administration demanded that President
Megawati Sukarnoputri, publicly refute the involvement of the U.S in the attack
s. No official retraction was issued. Not only did President. Megawati remained
silent on this matter, she also accused the US of being:
"a superpower that forced the rest of the world to go along with it… We see how am
bition to conquer other nations has led to a situation where there is no more pe
ace unless the whole world is complying with the will of the one with the power
and strength." 23
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration, had used the Bali attacks to prop up its fea
r campaign:
"President Bush said Monday that he assumes al-Qaeda was responsible for the dea
dly bombing in Indonesia and that he is worried about fresh attacks on the Unite
d States." 24
The news [regarding the Bali attack] came as US intelligence officials warned th
at more attacks like the Indonesian bombing can be expected in the next few mont
hs, in Europe, the Far East or the US."25
Cover-up
The links of JI to the Indonesian intelligence agency were never raised in the o
fficial Indonesian government investigation --which was guided behind the scenes
by Australian intelligence and the CIA.
Moreover, shortly after the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard "admi
tted that Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but
chose not to issue a warning."26 Also In the wake of the bombings, the Australia
n government chose to work with Indonesia’s Special Forces the Kopassus, in the so
-called "war on terrorism".
Australia: "Useful Wave of Indignation"
Reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the Bali attack served to trigger "a useful
wave of indignation."27 They contributed to swaying Australian public opinion i
n favour of the US invasion of Iraq, while weakening the anti-war protest moveme
nt. In the wake of the Bali attack, the Australian government "officially" joine
d the US-led "war on terrorism." It has not only used the Bali bombings as a pre
text to fully integrate the US-UK military axis, it has also adopted drastic pol
ice measures including "ethnic profiling" directed against its own citizens:
Prime Minister John Howard made the extraordinary declaration recently that he i
s prepared to make pre-emptive military strikes against terrorists in neighbouri
ng Asian countries planning to attack Australia. Australian intelligence agencie
s also are very worried about the likelihood of an al-Qaeda attack using nuclear
weapons.28
The Attacks on the Indian Parliament (December 2001)
The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed
to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by
two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish
-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"). The press reports acknowledged the ties of bot
h groups to Al Qaeda, without however mentioning that they were directly support
ed by Pakistan=s ISI. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) confirms in this re
gard that:
"through its Interservices Intelligence agency (ISI), Pakistan has provided fund
ing, arms, training facilities, and aid in crossing borders to Lashkar and Jaish…M
any were given ideological training in the same madrasas, or Muslim seminaries,
that taught the Taliban and foreign fighters in Afghanistan. They received milit
ary training at camps in Afghanistan or in villages in Pakistan-controlled Kashm
ir. Extremist groups [supported by the ISI] have recently opened several new mad
rasas in Azad Kashmir."29 (Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorisma
nswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002)
What the CFR fails to mention is the crucial relationship between the ISI and th
e CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the mili
tant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with t
he CIA. Ironically, confirmed by the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (who happen
s to be a member of the CFR), the training of these "foreign fighters" was an in
itiative of US foreign policy, launched during the Carter Administration in 1979
at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war. Coinciding with the 1989 Geneva Peace A
greement and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, the ISI was instrumental in
the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM).30 The
timely attack on the Indian Parliament, followed by the ethnic riots in Gujarat
in early 2002, were the culmination of a process initiated in the 1980s, finance
d by drug money and abetted by Pakistan’s military intelligence.
Dismantling the Propaganda Campaign, Building an Anti-War Consensus
We are at the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history, requiring a
n unprecedented degree of solidarity, courage and commitment. America s war, whi
ch includes the "first strike" use of nuclear weapons, threatens the future of h
umanity.
Much of the justification for waging this war without borders rests on the legit
imacy of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorist programme. The latter forms part
of the propaganda campaign, which in turn is used to sway the US population int
o an unconditional acceptance of the war agenda.
In the US, and around the world, the anti-war movement has gained in impetus. Wh
ile millions of people have joined hands in opposing the war, the Bush Administr
ation s fear and disinformation campaign, relayed by the corporate media, has se
rved to uphold the shaky legitimacy of the Bush administration.
At this critical crossroads, the anti-war/pro-democracy movement must necessaril
y move to a higher plane, which addresses the main functions of the Administrati
on s propaganda machine. The main purpose of propaganda is to sustain the legiti
macy of the rulers and ensure that the rulers remain in power.
Undermining the Bush Administration s « Right to Rule»
In other words, the mobilization of antiwar sentiment in itself will not reverse
the tide of war.
What is needed is to consistently challenge the legitimacy of the main political
and military actors, reveal the true face of the American Empire and the underl
ying criminalisation of foreign policy. Ultimately what is required is to questi
on and eventually undermine the Bush Administration s «right to rule».
Revealing the lies behind the Bush Administration is the basis for destroying th
e legitimacy of the main political and military actors.
Even if a majority of the population is against the war, this in itself will not
prevent the war from occurring. The propaganda campaign’s objective is to sustain
the lies which support the legitimacy of the main political and military actors
, including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Tenet, Armitage, Rice, et al. As l
ong as the Bush Cabinet is considered a «legitimate government» in the eyes of the p
eople and World public opinion, it will carry out the Iraqi invasion plan, wheth
er it has public support or not.
In other words, this legitimacy must be challenged. Similarly in Britain, where
a majority of the population is against the US-led war, actions must be launched
which ultimately result in the downfall of the Blair Cabinet and the withdrawal
of Britain from the US-led military coalition.
A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually d
ismantle their propaganda campaign. How best to achieve this objective? By fully
uncovering the lies behind the « war on terrorism» and revealing the complicity of
the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.
This is a big hoax, it’s the biggest lie in US history. The war pretext does not s
tick and the rulers should be removed.
Moreover, it is important to show that « Enemy Number One » is fabricated. The terro
rist attacks are indeed real, but who is behind them? The covert operations in s
upport of terrorist organisations, including the history of Al Qaeda’s links to th
e CIA since the Soviet Afghan war, must be fully revealed because they relate di
rectly to the wave of terrorist attacks which have occurred since September 11,
all of which are said to have links to Al Qaeda.
To reverse the tide, the spreading of information at all levels, which counterac
ts the propaganda campaign is required.
The truth undermines and overshadows the lie.
And the truth is that the Bush administration is in fact supporting internationa
l terrorism as a pretext to wage war on Iraq.
Once this truth becomes fully understood, the legitimacy of the rulers will coll
apse like a deck of cards. This is what has to be achieved. But we can only achi
eve it, by effectively counteracting the official propaganda campaign.
The momentum and success of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European U
nion and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network com
posed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighbourhoods,
work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through thi
s network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name will be challenged.
To shunt the Bush Administration s war plans and disable its propaganda machine,
we must, in the months ahead reach out to our fellow citizens across the land,
in the US, Canada and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who h
ave been misled on the causes and consequences of this war, not to mention the i
mplications of the Bush Administration s Homeland Security legislation, which es
sentially sets in place the building blocks of a police state.
This initiative requires the spreading of information in an extensive grassroots
network, with a view to weakening and ultimately disabling the Bush Administrat
ion’s propaganda machine.
When the lies – including those concerning September 11 – are fully revealed and und
erstood by everybody, the legitimacy of the Bush Administration will be broken – B
ig Brother will have no leg to stand on, that is, no more wars to feed on. While
this will not necessarily result in a fundamental and significant "regime chang
e" in the US, a new "anti-war consensus" will have emerged, which will eventuall
y pave the way for a broader struggle against the New World Order and the Americ
an Empire s quest for global domination.
NOTES
1. Washington Post, 25 January 2003.
2. Ibid
3 Chicago Sun, 31 December 2002.
4 Reuters, 21 February 2003
5. See Ian Woods, Conspiracy of Silence, McKinney Vindicated, Global Outlook, No
. 2, 2002.
6. Coleen Rowley, Memo To FBI Director Robert Mueller, quoted in Global Outlook,
No. 3, 2003, p. 28.
7. The Boston Globe, 5 June 2002.
8. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.
9. UPI, 19 December 2002.
10. New York Times, 6 January 2003.
11. Toronto Star, 5 January 2003.
12. The Scotsman, 8 January 2003.
13. UPI, 10 December 2002.
14. AFP, 3 January 2003.
15. See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlo
ok, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003.
16.Operation Northwoods, declassified top secret document sent by the Joint Chie
fs of Staff to Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, http://ww
w.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html .
17. William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002.
18. See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 1
1, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth
911.html
19. See Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant I
slamic Base, Congressional Press Release, US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://w
ww.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html
20. UPI, 6 January 2002.
21. International Crisis Group, Indonesia Backgrounder: How The Jemaah Islamiyah
Terrorist Network Operates, http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?re
portid=845 , 2003
22, Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, More Attacks on Westerners Are Expected in I
ndonesia, New York Times, 25 November 2002
23. Quoted in Raymond Bonner and Jane Perlez, op cit.
24. USA Today, 15 October 2002.
25. Business AM, 15 October 2002.
26. Christchurch Press, 22 November 2002), (Similar warnings were made by the CI
A).
27. Operation Northwoods, op cit.
28. Insight on the News, 3 February 2003.
29. Council on Foreign Relations at:
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002.
30. See K. Subrahmanyam, Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals, India Abroad, 3 Novem
ber 1995.
ANNEX
Supporting evidence that successive US administrations have supported Al Qaeda i
s summarized below (references are provided to a selected bibliography):
The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of US foreign policy. In the post-Cold War
era, the CIA continues to support and use Osama bin Laden s Al Qaeda in its cov
ert operations. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intellige
nce asset".
The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of
the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in K
osovo and Macedonia.
The evidence confirms that Al Qaeda is supported by Pakistan s military intellig
ence, the Inter-services Intelligence (ISI). Amply documented, the ISI, allegedl
y played an undercover role in financing the 9/11 attacks. The ISI has a close w
orking relationship with the CIA.
Pakistan’s ISI has consistently supported various Islamic terrorist organizations,
while also collaborating with the CIA.
These various terrorist groups supported by Pakistan’s ISI operate with some degre
e of autonomy in relation to their covert sponsors, but ultimately they act in t
he way which serves US interests.
The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin La
den s whereabouts are known. Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA. In other words,
there were no "intelligence failures"! The 9-11 terrorists did not act on their
own volition. The suicide hijackers were instruments in a carefully planned int
elligence operation.
For further details consult: Centre for Research on Globalization, 9/11 Reader,
which constitutes and extensive bibliography at http://globalresearch.ca//by-top
ic/sept11/
See also Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September
11, Global Outlook, 2002