[Reader-list] Fwd: World War III

[A. Mani]

FORWARDED MESSAGE

______________________________

Michel Chossudovsky: Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of
Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran
				
	
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

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20584

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 the 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 that 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", simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003
"when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data
needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for
Iran." ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006).

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part
of a "Shock 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 missile force. U.S. and British planners
conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush
directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war
plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of
this 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 both 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 postwar stability operations after
regime change." (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been
contemplated:  "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". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US
Central Command, has inherited computerized plans 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 Dick 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 government 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 strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of
Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved
in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several
senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly
appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being
set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to
damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, 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 military planning and sequencing of military operations.
Already under the Clinton administration, US Central Command
(USCENTCOM) had formulated  "in war theater plans" to invade first
Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategic
objective:

   "The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in
the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's
National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United
States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states
of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S.
interests, to other states in the region, and to their own citizens.
Dual containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the
region without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater
strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S.
engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States'
vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied
access to Gulf oil." (USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy,
link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9)

The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military
operations.  According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley
Clark, the Pentagon's military road-map consisted of a sequence of
countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a total of
seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
Iran, Somalia and Sudan."  In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General
Clark states the following:

   "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the
senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still
on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was
being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and
there were a total of seven countries, beginning 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 not have a separate and distinct military agenda.

Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations"
against Iran formulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM).
In the context of large 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 would require a "green
light" from Washington.

An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism"
which would unleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation
by Iran directed against 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 military operation directed against Iran. The Israeli
attack --although led in close liaison with the Pentagon and NATO--
would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel
Aviv. It would then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of
World opinion, a military intervention of the US and NATO with a view
to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran. Under existing
military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be
"obligated" to "defend Israel" against Iran and Syria.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush's
second term, (former) 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 involvement 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 destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide
to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up
the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney, quoted from an MSNBC
Interview, January 2005)

Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security
adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with
some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to
act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

   "Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly
not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a
kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom
hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which
sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis
to do it."

What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel  military operation
to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage since 2004.
Officials in the Defense Department, under Bush and Obama, have been
working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence
counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. In practical
military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and
coordinated at the highest levels of the US led coalition.

An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical
support, particularly 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,  Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment
to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader 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-based] detection network, which includes
satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, 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 than Israel controls the air defense system: '''This is and
will remain a U.S. radar system,' Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell
said. 'So this is not something we are giving or selling to the
Israelis and it is something that will likely require 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 the 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 House Resolution
1553, which explicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:

   "The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46
of his colleagues, endorses Israel’s use of “all means necessary”
against Iran “including the use of military force.” ... “We’ve got to
get this done. We need to show our support for Israel. We need to quit
playing games with this critical ally in such a difficult area.”’ (See
Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent Nuclear War; Admiral
Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation
Builds On, Global Research, 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 sponsored war on Iran which uses Israel as a convenient
military launch pad. It also serves 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 response 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 against Iran.

Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be
the first target of military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking,
Israelis would be the victims of the machinations of both Washington
and their own government. It is, in 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
Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in
liaison with the regional 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 and the Diego Garcia
military base in the Indian Ocean.  Military planning and decision
making at a country level by individual allies of US-NATO as well as
"partner nations" is integrated into a global military design
including the weaponization 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 jargon, it is slated to play the role of "a
global integrator charged with the missions of Space Operations;
Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command &
Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike;
and Strategic Deterrence.... "

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 is 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 integration and synchronization of DoD-wide
efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." (Michel
Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3,
2006).

What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on
Iran, including the various scenarios of escalation in and beyond the
broader Middle East Central 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 capability for rapidly striking targets
around the globe using nuclear or conventional 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 Strike Capability, Global Security Newswire,
December 2, 2005)

Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era:  President Obama has
largely endorsed the doctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons
formulated by the previous administration. Under the 2010 Nuclear
Posture Review, the Obama administration confirmed  "that it is
reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its
non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent)
nuclear weapons program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to
Israeli Attack Threat - IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010). The Obama
administration has also intimated that it would use nukes in the case
of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack 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 enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment
facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete
and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used
only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States
declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed: Israel plans
nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)

Obama's statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and
North Korea are consistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine,
which allows for the use 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 means to combating "Islamic terrorism"
and instating Western style "democracy" in Iran. The low-yield nukes
have been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slated to be used
against Iran and Syria in the next stage of America's "war on
Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons.

   "Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are
needed as a credible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria,
North Korea] Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too
destructive to be used except in a full-scale nuclear war. Potential
enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat of nuclear
retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are
less destructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them
more effective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of
Nuke Research Funds Defense News November 29, 2004)

The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical
nuclear weapons (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 Bomb 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/CHO112C.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 bombs which are deployed and could be used in a war with
Iran. Under Israel's Jericho?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 area of  the broader Middle East
(including Israel) and Central Asian region.

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means
to building peace and preventing "collateral damage".  Iran's
nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, whereas
those of the US  and Israel are instruments 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 21,500-pound "monster weapon" nicknamed the "mother of all bombs"
The GBU-43/B or Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized
"as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed" with the the
largest yield in the US conventional arsenal. 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
advised the government of  Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003
that the "mother of all bombs" was to be used against Iraq. (There
were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it
intends to use 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). The truth of the matter is
that the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in extremely
large civilian casualties. It is a conventional "killing machine" 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 stealth bombers.(Ibid). This
procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to
Iran. The notification was contained in a 93-page "reprogramming memo"
which included the following instructions:

"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the
capability to strike 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 Command (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 infrastructure 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 terms of explosive
capacity.

The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the
underground nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan
bomb—longer than 11 persons 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 Use Against Iran and
North Korea Nuclear Programs", Cutting Edge, September 21 2009)

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 MOAB ("mother of all bombs'), is "mass
destruction" and mass civilian casualties with 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 Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the
revolution in communications and information systems. Given the
advances in military technology and the development of new weapons
systems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms
of the mix of weapons systems, when compared to the March 2003
Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iran operation is slated to use
the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerial attacks. In
all likelihood, new weapons 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 scale 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 Century, 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 replace the existing paradigms.

   "Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will
in fact be a two-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, for example – that would commit U.S. forces to current
paradigms of warfare for many 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 significant conventional military capabilities
including more than half a million ground forces.

Electromagnetic Weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran's
communications systems, disable electric power generation, undermine
and destabilize command and control, government infrastructure,
transportation, energy, etc.  Within the same family of weapons,
environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare)
developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See Michel
Chossudovsky, "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, Global Research,
September 27, 2004). These weapons systems are fully operational. In
this context, te US Air Force document AF 2025 explicitly
acknowledgedthe military applications of weather modification
technologies:

   "Weather modification will become a part of domestic and
international security and could be done unilaterally... It could have
offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence
purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on
earth or to modify space weather, improve communications through
ionospheric modification (the use of ionospheric mirrors), and the
production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set
of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or
degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness,
reach, and power." (Air Force 2025 Final Report, See also US Air
Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025,
AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning... | (Ch 1) at
www.fas.org).

Electromagnetic radiation enabling "remote health impairment" might
also be envisaged in the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek,
Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:, Global Research, August 6,
2004). In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the US military
might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: "[A]dvanced forms of
biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform
biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful
tool." (PNAC, op cit., p. 60).

Iran's Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles

Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long
range missiles 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 to be used either pr-emptively or
in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.


Range of Iran's Shahab Missiles. Copyright Washington Post

In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by
precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a
senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka),  "the Iranians
demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West
had not known them to possess." (See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran's
"Power of Deterrence"  Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel
acknowledged 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 make 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 not 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 attacked. 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 Arabia, 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 has significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What
is important to acknowledge is the sheer size of Iranian forces in
terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) when compared to US and
NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are
already overstretched in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces
be able to cope if Iranian ground forces were to enter the existing
battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the Resistance
movement to US and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are
professional soldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are
reservists. (See  Islamic Republic 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
branches: Its own Navy, Air Force, and Ground Forces; and the Quds
Force (Special Forces)." According to the CISS, Iran's Basij
paramilitary volunteer force controlled 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 be
mobilized if need be" (Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran -
Wikipedia), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a million
regular troops and several 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 are fully operational. Iran's military is in a
state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are currently within
a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, 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
Emirates.

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 Gulf including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

While Iran's advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and
NATO, Iranian forces would be in a position to inflict substantial
losses to coalition forces in  a conventional war theater, on the
ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops and tanks in
December 2009 crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or
challenged by allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the
East Maysan oil field.

Even in the event of an effective Blitzkrieg, which targets Iran's
military facilities, its communications systems, etc. through massive
aerial bombing, using cruise 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 simulated war
scenarios.

An operation of this nature would result in significant military and
civilian casualties, particularly if nuclear weapons are used.

The expanded budget for the war in Afghanistan currently debated in
the US Congress 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 War 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 drawing 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 preparations are in an advanced state of readiness does not imply
that these war plans will 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 Iran.

Another crucial factor is the structure of military alliances. Whereas
NATO has become a formidable force, the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), which constitutes an alliance between Russia and
China and a number of former Soviet republics has been significantly
weakened.

The ongoing US military threats directed  against China and Russia are
intended to 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 base of society, requiring forceful antiwar action by hundred
of millions of people across the land, nationally and internationally.

People must mobilize not only against this diabolical military agenda,
the authority of the State and its officials must be also be
challenged.

This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their
governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the
local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word,
inform their fellow citizens as to the implications of a nuclear war,
initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

The holding of mass demonstrations and antiwar protests is not enough.
What is required is the development of a broad and well organized
grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power
and authority.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully
challenges the legitimacy 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 Globalization (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 contributor to the
Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more
than twenty languages. he can be reached at the globalresearch.ca
website


Author's note: Dear Global Research Readers, kindly forward this text
far and wide to friends and family, on internet forums, within the
workplace, in your neighborhood, nationally and internationally, with
a view to reversing the tide of war.  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)



Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.


Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article
are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research
on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate
or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are
not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed.
For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms
including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor at yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material 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 material 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
wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use"
you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor at yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010

The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20584

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

_____________________________________

-- 
A. Mani
ASL, CLC,  AMS, CMS
http://www.logicamani.co.cc