by Michel Chossudovsky
December 26, 2011
"When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an "instrument of
peace", condoned and accepted by the World's institutions and
the highest authority, including the United Nations, there is no
turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated
headlong onto the path of self-destruction."
(Towards a World War III
Scenario, Global Research, May 2011)
The World is at a Dangerous Crossroads. America's is on a War Path.
World War III is no longer an abstract concept. The US and its allies
are preparing to launch a nuclear war directed against Iran with
This military adventure in the real sense of the word threatens the
future of humanity. The Pentagon’s global military design is one of
world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring
in several regions of the world simultaneously.
War pretexts and "justifications" abound. Iran is heralded as a threat
to Israel and the World.
The war on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for more
than eight years. In recent developments, a renewed set of threats and
accusations directed against Tehran have been launched.
A "war of stealth" has already commenced. Mossad intelligence operatives
are on the ground. Covert paramilitary formations are being launched
inside Iran, CIA drones are being deployed.
Meanwhile, Washington. London, Brussels and Tel Aviv have launched
specific destabilizing initiatives "to choke Iran diplomatically,
financially and economically".
A stepped up economic sanctions regime has been formulated by the US
"a bipartisan consensus has emerged in
Washington in favor of strangling the Iranian economy." The latter
consists in implementing "an amendment to the 2012 defence
authorization bill, designed to "collapse the Iranian economy"... by
making it virtually impossible for Tehran to sell its oil."
Washington's Countdown to War, Global Research, December 2011)
This new wave of diplomatic hype coupled
with the threat of economic sanctions has also contributed to triggering
an aura of uncertainty in the market for crude oil, with potentially
devastating consequences on the global economy.
Meanwhile, the corporate media has embarked on a renewed propaganda
stint pertaining to Iran's alleged nuclear program, pointing to
"activities related to possible weaponization."
In recent developments, barely acknowledged by
the US media, President
Barack Obama met privately (December 16), behind
closed doors with Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
The meeting was held in the outskirts of
Washington DC at the Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor, Maryland under the
auspices of the Union for Reform Judaism.
Barack meets Barak, Barack
Obama and Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak
December 16, 2011 at the URJ Biennal Plenary, Gaylord Hotel, National Harbor
(White House photo)
The importance of this timely private meeting
under URJ auspices cannot be underestimated. Reports suggest that the Barack
O./E. Barak meeting centered largely on the issue of a US-Israeli attack on
Writing in Haaretz, Israeli political analyst Amir Oren described the
Barack-Barak meeting as a potential "Green Light" to Israel to launch an all
out war on Iran:
"Is it possible that the half-hour meeting
last Friday at the Gaylord Hotel in National Harbor, Maryland, between
U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will be
remembered in Israel's history as the moment at which Barack O. gave the
green light to E. Barak - for better or for worse - to attack Iran?...
Can this be seen as a sort of flashback to
the talk between Defense Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. Secretary of
State Alexander Haig in Washington in May 1982, that gave rise to the
(mistaken) Israeli impression that there was an understanding with the
United States over going to war in Lebanon... "
No sign U.S. has given Israel green light
to strike Iran - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Following this private meeting, Obama addressed
the Biennial Plenary of the Union for Reform Judaism, reassuring his
"cooperation between our militaries [and
intelligence] has never been stronger."
Obama underscored that Iran is a,
"threat to the security of Israel, the
United States and the world... And that’s why our policy has been
absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring
And that’s why... we have imposed the most
comprehensive, the hardest-hitting sanctions that the Iranian regime has
ever faced... And that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off
(Transcript of President Obama Union for
Reform Judaism Speech Video - Dec. 16. 2011: Address at URJ Biennial, 71st
General Assembly )
"Coordinated" US-Israeli Attack on Iran?
In recent weeks, the US media tabloids have been literally plastered with
"no options off the table" statements by
Hillary Clinton and Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta.
Panetta intimated, however,
"that Israel should not consider unilateral
action against Iran" while stressing "that any military operation
against Iran by Israel must be coordinated with the United States and
have its backing".
(Panetta's December 2 statement at the Saban Center quoted in U.S. Defense Secretary: Iran could get nuclear
bomb within a year - Haaretz, December 11, 2011)
The Threat of Nuclear
War against Iran
The "no options off the table" statement intimates that the US not only
envisages an attack on Iran but that this attack could include the use of
tactical bunker buster nuclear weapons with an explosive capacity between
one third and six times a Hiroshima bomb.
In a cruel irony, these "humanitarian"
"peace-making" nuclear bombs "Made in America" - which according to
"scientific opinion" on contract to the Pentagon are "harmless to the
surrounding civilian population" - are contemplated to be used against Iran
in retaliation for its nonexistent nuclear weapons program.
While Iran has no nuclear weapons, what is rarely acknowledged is that five
(officially) "non-nuclear States" including Germany, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Italy and Turkey have US made tactical nuclear weapons deployed
under national command in their respective military bases. This nuclear
arsenal is slated to be used against Iran.
The stockpiling and deployment of tactical B61 in these five "non-nuclear
states" are intended for targets in the Middle East.
In accordance with "NATO strike plans", these
thermonuclear B61 bunker buster bombs would be launched,
"against targets in
Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Syria and Iran".
National Resources Defense Council,
Nuclear Weapons in Europe , February
While these "undeclared nuclear states" casually accuse Tehran of developing
nuclear weapons, without documentary evidence, they themselves have
capabilities of delivering nuclear warheads, which are targeted at Iran,
Syria and Russia.
(See Michel Chossudovsky,
Europe's Five "Undeclared
Nuclear Weapons States", Global Research, February 12, 2010)
Israel's Nukes are
Pointed at Iran
Joint US-Israel "Coordination" of Nuclear Weapons
Israel rather than Iran is a threat to global security.
Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads, which are fully
deployed against Iran.
Already in 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were
"the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles
armed with nuclear warheads in Israel's fleet of Dolphin-class submarines."
(The Observer, 12 October 2003).
According to Russian general Leonid Ivashov:
The Israeli military and political circles
had been making statements on the possibility of nuclear and missile
strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006, when the idea was
immediately supported by G. Bush.
Currently  it is touted in the form of
a “necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught to believe that
there is nothing monstrous about such a possibility and that, on the
contrary, a nuclear strike is quite feasible.
Allegedly, there is no
other way to “stop” Iran.
(General Leonid Ivashov,
Iran Must Get
Ready to Repel a Nuclear Attack, Global Research, January 2007)
It is worth noting that at the outset of Bush's
second term, Vice President Dick Cheney had 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".
In the above context, political analyst and
historian Michael Carmichael has pointed to the integration and
coordination of military decision-making between the US and Israel
pertaining to the deployment of nuclear weapons:
"Rather than a direct American nuclear
strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel has been given the assignment
of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear strikes aimed at targets
that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities: Natanz,
Isfahan and Arak."
(Michael Carmichael, Global Research,
"No Options off the Table"
What Does it Mean in the Context of Military Planning?
Integration of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons Systems
The rules and guidelines of the US Military governing the use of nuclear
weapons have been "liberalized" (i.e. "deregulated" in relation to those
prevailing during the Cold War era).
The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons
against Iran no longer depends on the Commander in Chief, namely president
Barack Obama. It is strictly a military decision.
The new doctrine states that Command, Control,
and Coordination (CCC) regarding the use of nuclear weapons should be
"flexible", allowing geographic combat commanders to decide if and when to
use of nuclear weapons.
Known in official Washington, as "Joint
Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear
Operations - DJNO, March 2005) calls for "integrating conventional and
nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).
It largely describes war planning as a management decision-making process,
where military and strategic objectives are to be achieved, through a mix of
instruments, with little concern for the resulting loss of human life.
What this means is that if an attack on Iran is launched, tactical nuclear
weapons will be an integral part of the weapons arsenal.
From a military
"no options off the table" means that the
Military will apply "the most efficient use of force".
In this context, nuclear and conventional
weapons are part of what the Pentagon calls "the tool box", from which
military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in
"evolving circumstances" in the "war
See Michel Chossudovsky,
Targeting Iran - Is The US Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?
- Global Research, August 09, 2010
"Once a decision to launch a military
operation is taken (e.g. aerial strikes on Iran), theater commanders
have a degree of latitude. What this signifies in practice is once the
presidential decision is taken, USSTRATCOM in liaison with theater
commanders can decide on the targeting and type of weaponry to be used.
Stockpiled tactical nuclear weapons are now
considered to be an integral part of the battlefield arsenal. In other
words, nukes have become "part of the tool box", used in conventional
The Integration of
Conventional and Nuclear Warfare
Of utmost relevance to the planned attack on Iran, US military documents
point towards the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the
use of nukes on a pre-emptive basis in the conventional war theater.
This proposed "integration" of conventional and nuclear weapons systems was
first formulated in 2003 under CONPLAN 8022.
The latter is described as,
"a concept plan for the quick use of
nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy -
pre-emptively, if necessary - "time-urgent targets" anywhere in the
world [including Iran]."
(See Michel Chossudovsky,
US, NATO and
Israel Deploy Nukes directed against Iran, Global Research, September
Coordinated by US Strategic Command, CONPLAN
became operational in early 2004. (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen,
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists).
CONPLAN opens up a military Pandora's box. It
blurs the dividing line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It opens
the door for the preemptive use of nukes "anywhere in the World"
The Absence of Public
The "international community" has endorsed an attack on Iran in the name of
"Making the World safer" is the justification for launching a military
operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.
While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from
present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully
comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using
"new technologies" and advanced weapons, including nukes, until it occurs
and becomes a reality.
The corporate media is involved in deliberately blocking news coverage
concerning these war preparations. The war on Iran and the dangers of
escalation are not considered "front page news." The mainstream media has
excluded in-depth analysis and debate on the implications of these war
Iran does not constitute a nuclear threat.
The threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel military
alliance which contemplates - under the CONPLAN framework - the use of
thermonuclear weapons against a non nuclear state.
In the words of General Ivashov,
"The public is taught to believe that there
is nothing monstrous about such a possibility".
Nuclear weapons are "part of tool box".
An attack on Iran would have devastating consequences, It would unleash an
all out regional war from the Eastern Mediterranean to Central Asia,
potentially leading humanity into a World War III Scenario.
The Obama Administration constitutes a nuclear threat.
NATO constitutes a
Five European "non-nuclear states",
...with tactical nuclear weapons deployed under
national command, to be used against Iran constitute a nuclear threat.
The Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not only
constitutes a nuclear threat, but also a threat to the security of people of
Israel, who are misled regarding the implications of an US-Israeli attack on
The complacency of Western public opinion - including segments of the US
anti-war movement - is disturbing. No concern has been expressed at the
political level as to the likely consequences of a US-NATO-Israel attack on
Iran, using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.
Such an action would result in "the unthinkable": a nuclear holocaust over a
large part of the Middle East. It should be noted that a nuclear nightmare
would occur even if nuclear weapons were not used.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities using
conventional weapons would contribute to unleashing a Chernobyl-Fukushima
type disaster with extensive radioactive fallout.