Iran: Next
Target of US Military Aggression
Selected articles and
essays
By Michel Chossudovsky,
Editor
Global Research E-Monograph and Reports Series, No. 3, February 2005
PREFACE
The Bush
administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as the next stage
of “the road map to war”.
Targeting Iran is a
bipartisan project, which broadly serves the interests of the
Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street financial establishment
and the military-industrial complex.
The broader Middle
East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 70% of the World's
reserves of oil and natural gas. Iraq possesses 11% of the world's oil and
ranks only second to Saudi Arabia in the size of its reserves.
The announcement to
target Iran should come as no surprise. Already during the Clinton
administration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war
theater plans" to invade both Iraq and Iran:
"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
, emphasis added)
The
Project for a New American Century
Bush’s National
Security doctrine contained in the PNAC is a continuation of Clinton's
"strategy of containment of rogue states".
The PNAC is a
neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence
establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of
US foreign policy.
The PNAC's declared
objectives are:
§
defend the American
homeland;
§
fight and decisively win
multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
§
perform the "constabulary"
duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical
regions;
§
transform U.S. forces to
exploit the "revolution in military affairs;"
Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice
President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the
2000 presidential elections.
The PNAC outlines a
roadmap of conquest.
It calls for "the
direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the
Middle East: "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world,
while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to
America's vision of a 'free market' economy".
Distinct from theater
wars, the so-called "constabulary functions" imply a form of global
military policing using various instruments of military intervention
including punitive bombings and the sending in of US Special Forces, etc.
Constabulary functions are contemplated in the first phase of US actions
against Iran.
With regard to Syria,
already in October 2003, the bombing of presumed ‘terrorist bases’ in
Syria by the Israeli Air Force was intended to provide a justification for
subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the
attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld.
The Pentagon views
‘territorial control’ over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between
Israel and occupied Iraq, as ‘strategic’ from a military and economic
standpoint.
This planned
extension of the war into Syria and Iran has serious implications. It
means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as
well as an ‘official’ member of the Anglo-American coalition. It also
raises the broader issue of nuclear weapons and their use in the Middle
East war theater.
The US, Britain and
Israel already have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Meanwhile,
Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East
including Tehran and Damascus. The
governments of all three countries have stated quite openly that they plan
to use nuclear weapons “if they are attacked”.
The
Pre-emptive War Doctrine
"Preemptive military
action" against Iran, is presented as an act of "self-defense" against two
categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":
"The war against
terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration.
…America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully
formed.
The United States has
long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient
threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is
the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking
anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such
hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively." (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )
To justify
pre-emptive military actions, including the use of nuclear weapons in
conventional war theaters (approved by the Senate in late 2003), the
National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist
threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist
threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states" including
Iran and Syria. Michel Chossudovsky, 10 February 2005
I
TARGETING IRAN
Cheney: Iran at "top of the list" of Trouble Spots, "asks" Israel to carry
out the Attack
US Vice President
Dick Cheney has confirmed that Iran is "right at the top of the
list" of global trouble spots and worried that Israel might strike to shut
down Tehran's nuclear programs. "One of the concerns people have is that
Israel might do it without being asked,"
US threatens Iran with military strike at its nuclear sites
While US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice is paying a visit to Israel, experts from the US
Defense Department and Israel have drafted a plan to carry out a military
strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. As the experts at the European
Commission in Brussels, who revealed the information, explained this news
is designed to press the EU negotiatiors to put the screws on Iran and
force it to suspend all its activities related to uranium enrichment,
threatening that the US and Israel would carry out a military strike if
Iran fails to comply with the US-Israeli impositions.
Next Target: Iran by Richard M Bennett
It is now widely
considered almost inevitable that the United States will target Iran next.
Whether this is in
the form of a full scale invasion with the intention of regime change, in
which case it will probably be delayed until some degree of stability has
been enforced on Iraq or it could take the form of a short sharp air
campaign designed to destroy as much as possible of Iran's Nuclear,
Missile and Command Control infrastructure.
This latter course,
the neo-cons in Washington are apparently convincing themselves, would
also seriously undermine the conservative anti-American element of Iran's
present leadership
Targeting Tehran, by Galal Nassar
Where will the US
strike next? The question has been splashed across the world's media and
is being asked of political and military analysts everywhere. Washington
remains tight-lipped on the subject. But Israel, its closest ally, seems
to have made up its mind.
Israeli officials are
trying to persuade their friends in the US that Iran should be next on the
hit list.
Bush Administration Readying for 2004 Invasion of Iran by John Stanton
Even though Syria is
next on the chopping block according to the authors of A Clean Break: A
New Strategy for Securing the Realm--chief among them Richard Perle and
Douglas Feith--it is Iran that they covet. In their view, it's payback
time for the 1970's overthrow of the Shah and subsequent takeover by
Khomeni (then exiled in France), the occupation of the US Embassy, the
ensuing hostage crisis, the botched rescue attempt that sullied America's
military reputation, and tit-for-tat terrorist actions over the years
between the US and Iran (US Navy shoot down of Iranian airliner, Iranian
backed terrorist attacks on US troops, etc).
Militarisation of the entire Middle East Region by Erich Marquardt
In removing the
Saddam Hussein government, the U.S. will be projecting its power further
into the Middle East. Following the
ouster of Saddam, Washington will
find it necessary to construct military bases in Iraq in order to handle
U.S. military activity in the post-war phase. This will follow the model
successfully implemented in Afghanistan. With Iraq as a new military
launching point, the U.S. will find itself in an incredibly strategic
location. Bordering six critical states, Iraq is located at the heart of
the Middle East.
Once military bases
are active in Iraq, Washington
will be able to reshape the Middle East, a term that has been used by
administration officials for the last decade. U.S. government officials
have expressed their concern with the country of Syria, which is located
on Iraq's western border.
Target Iran: It's a semi-secret joint US-Israel Operation, by Gordon
Thomas
The US has now
secretly cooperated more than ever with the Sharon regime in Israel to
prepare for an attack which if successful will destroy Iranian facilities
that could be used to produce nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver
them. The justification model is of course Israel's attack on Osirak near
Baghdad 22 years ago. Possibly to take place at the same time the
Americans are preparing to attack North Korean nuclear facilities.
This is the real
military pressure that is now being ratcheted up on both countries to
quite literally attempt to force them to change course. This was the
reason senior European Foreign Ministers recently rushed to Tehran.
But after watching
what the US has now done to Iraq -- a country that in fact did succumb and
change course only to find itself 'regime changed' and occupied by the
Americans -- this historic cat and mouse game may not work quite so easily
as it has before for Washington.
Moreover there are
other players much more intimately involved now -- Pakistan, Syria, Saudi
Arabia... with China as well as Russia watching every so closely and a
whole world more skeptical of the Americans, as well as the Israelis, than
ever
Iran's Reza Pahlavi: A Puppet of the USA and Israel? by John Stanton,
The omnipresent
neo-conservative kingmakers are at it again, this time with the eloquent
and dashing Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, eldest son of the former enigmatic
Iranian King of Kings, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran from
1941 until his exile in 1979. The rest, as the cliché goes, is a history
well known to the world. That painful past for Americans, Iranians, and
Iraqis includes the Ayatollah Khomeini's authoritarian rule, former
President Jimmy Carter's debilitating US Embassy Hostage crisis, former
President Ronald Reagan's damaging Iran-Contra Affair, the horribly futile
Iran-Iraq War in which the US supported Iraq, and, now, as history
continues to weave its ugly tapestry, Iran finds itself a bona-fide member
of current President George Bush II's Axis-of-Evil.
II
BEYOND IRAN: AMERICA'S MILITARY ROADMAP
Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Is this the Roadmap that Bush
and Blair keep talking about?
Provides selected
references on the New American Century Road Map together with the letter
addressed by the PNAC to George W Bush dated September 20, 2001.
Neo-Con Agenda:, Iran China, Russia, Latin America by Jim Lobe
An influential
foreign-policy neo-conservative with longstanding ties to top hawks in the
administration of President George W Bush has laid out what he calls ''a
checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his
subordinates in a second term.''
The list, which begins with the destruction of Fallujah in Iraq and ends
with the development of ''appropriate strategies'' for dealing with
threats posed by China, Russia and ''the emergence of a number of
aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America,'' also calls for
''regime change'' in Iran and North Korea.
The Coming Wars by Seymour Hersh
George W. Bush’s
reelection was not his only victory last fall. The President and his
national-security advisers have consolidated control over the military and
intelligence communities’ strategic analyses and covert operations to a
degree unmatched since the rise of the post-Second World War
national-security state. Bush has an aggressive and ambitious agenda for
using that control—against the mullahs in Iran and against targets in the
ongoing war on terrorism—during his second term.
The Empire in the Year 2005 by James Petras
The Iraqi resistance
and the US weakness means that it is unlikely that the US will launch a
major land war in any major ‘enemy’ country in 2005 – (Iran, Syria,
Venezuela). The declining fortunes of the US colonial war and the
increased withdrawal of satellite forces (Hungary,
Poland, Ukraine) will provoke a major debate in 2005. Several leading
Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, Republicans and Zionists are calling
for deepening the war and calling up more troops – up to 100,000. Most of
the Congressional "liberal" critics of Rumsfeld are more bellicose, more
militarist: 2005 will see greater US military involvement in Iraq, more
casualties and increasing opposition from the families of veterans,
returning soldiers and "average Americans."
America's War for Global Domination by Michel Chossudovsky
We are the juncture
of the most serious crisis in modern history. The Bush Administration has
embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda,
which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda
including the plans to attack Iran, is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War
and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).
The deployment of
America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of
influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only
in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former
Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there
has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.
Bush’s Operation Clean Sweep: World War IV in 2004? by John Stanton
Simultaneously with
invasion of Syria, Iran will be subjected to an extraordinary air and
cruise missile assault led by American forces. This operation will include
additional military elements from the Turkish and Afghani military who
will have been promised a piece of Iran once it is defeated. A withering
air assault will come from the Northwest through Turkey, from the West
from US controlled Iraq, from the East from the air bases in Afghanistan,
and from carrier groups and cruise missile launching submarines, to
include an Israeli submarine, in the Persian Gulf. Within 60 business
days, Iran will be defeated by US-led forces.
Bush's State of the Union: Billions for Endless War and Empire by
International Action Center
Using the
now-familiar and discredited accusation of possessing weapons of mass
destruction, Bush made it clear that the people of Iran, Syria, and North
Korea will suffer the same fate as the people of Iraq if he has his way.
He swore that we must
"confront regimes that continue to harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of
mass murder." This same justification, proven to be an outright lie, was
used for the war against Iraq. In Bush language, this means the intent to
attack any country, anywhere, if it serves the interests of U.S. corporate
Empire.
The U.S. government,
in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., is “the greatest purveyor of
violence in the world.” Its death squads are at work in Colombia. The city
of Miami is a base for terrorist attacks against the people of Cuba. The
U.S. maintains the world’s largest stockpile of weapons of mass
destruction: illegal chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
III THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR WAR
Israeli Weapons of Mass Destruction: a Threat to Peace, John
Steinbach,
Israeli nuclear
weapons are among the world's most sophisticated, designed for "war
fighting" in the Middle East,
With between 200 and
500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has
quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th Largest nuclear power, and
may currently rival France
and China in the size and
sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by the nuclear
arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 nuclear
weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should be
publically recognized as such.. Since the Gulf War in 1991, while much
attention has been lavished on the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction, the major culprit in the region, Israel, has been largely
ignored. Possessing chemical and biological weapons, an extremely
sophisticated nuclear arsenal, and an aggressive strategy for their actual
use, Israel provides the major regional impetus for the development of
weapons of mass destruction and represents an acute threat to peace and
stability in the Middle East.
U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms, Pentagon Secret Report.
Paul Richter,
The Bush
administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to
use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries and to build smaller
nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations, according to a
classified Pentagon report.
The secret report
says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against
China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. It says the
weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able
to withstand nonnuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear,
biological or chemical weapons; or "in the event of surprising military
developments."
Pentagon Shocker: US Threatens Nuclear First Strike, by Fred Goldstein
The Bush
administration has dramatically escalated its campaign of global
intimidation by going public with portions of the Pentagon's latest
classified plans for the use of nuclear weapons and its targeting of
China, Russia, the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea,
Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya with these weapons.
Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable by William Arkin
A secret policy
review of the nation’s nuclear policy puts forth chilling new
contingencies for nuclear war.
The Bush
administration, in a secret policy review ordered the Pentagon to draft
contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against at least seven
countries, naming not only Russia and the "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea--but also China, Libya and Syria.
In addition, the U.S.
Defense Department has been told to prepare for the possibility that
nuclear weapons may be required in some future Arab-Israeli crisis. And,
it is to develop plans for using nuclear weapons to retaliate against
chemical or biological attacks, as well as "surprising military
developments" of an unspecified nature.
Nuclear Nightmare: Bush Nuclear Policy and War On Iraq by John
Steinbach,
The primary purpose
of nuclear weapons has never been about deterrence or mutually assured
destruction (MAD), but rather to serve as a coercive foreign policy
instrument designed and intended for actual war fighting.5
Nuclear weapons designed to back up military intervention and enforce
geopolitical dictates are seen by Pentagon war planners as the backbone of
war-fighting strategy, and in this capacity have been used at least 27
times between 1945 and 1998
The US Nuclear Option and the "War on Terrorism" by Michel
Chossudovsky
We are the juncture
of the most serious crisis in modern history. In the wake of the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, in the largest display of military might
since the Second World War, the Bush Administration has embarked upon a
military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.
The multilateral
safeguards of the Cold War era with regard to the production and use of
nuclear weapons have been scrapped.
While Al Qaeda is
presented to public opinion as constituting a nuclear threat, the US
Senate has provided a "green light" to the use of tactical nuclear weapons
in conventional war theaters against "rogue states" and terrorist
organizations.
According to the
Pentagon, these weapons are "harmless to civilians".
Israel's Nuclear Option: Vanunu: The Terrible Secret by Uri Avnery
The danger of nuclear
arms was the main pretext for the invasion of Iraq. Iran is threatened in
order to compel it to stop its nuclear efforts.
Libya
has surrendered and is dismantling its nuclear installations.
So what about Israel?
The Americans are full partners in the creation of Israel’s "nuclear
option".
How was this exposed?
With the help of Mordecai Vanunu, of course.
IV
OIL AND PETRODOLLARS
The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target: The Emerging
Euro-denominated International Oil Marker by William
Clarke
In 2005-2006, The
Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New
York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades -
using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means
that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish
a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and
the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's
objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in
the international oil market
The Anglo-American Military Axis by Michel Chossudovsky
The clash between
Great Powers ("Old Europe" versus and the Anglo-American military axis)
broadly pertains to Defense and the military-industrial complex, Control
over Oil and Gas Reserves, Money and currency systems: clash between the
Euro and the Dollar.
V
WAR PROPAGANDA: INVENTING AN OUTSIDE ENEMY
The Role of Political Islam: Inventing the Enemy, by Dave Stratman
It used to be said
during the Cold War that, "If the Communist threat did not exist, the
US
would have to invent it." The threat of nuclear war and the notion of a
Communist (or capitalist) under every bed provided American and Soviet
ruling elites excellent means to frighten and control their own citizens,
justify enormous arms expenditures, and legitimize power projection abroad
in the name of saving the world from Communism (or capitalism).
Greasing the Skids for Mass Murdering Iranians, by Kurt Nimmo
The Bush
administration and the US congress are busy at work on the “Iran Freedom
and Support Act,” in other words a bill designed to get America ready to
bomb Iran. “By supporting the people of
Iran,
and through greater outreach to pro-democracy groups, we will hopefully
foster a peaceful transition to democracy in
Iran,” “The bill also notes the
futility of working with the Iranian government.”
This E-Report is
published as a service to our Global Research members. We kindly request
Readers of this Special Report to either become
A Member of Global Research , or to make
a modest contribution in the form of a donation.
-------------------------
Email
this article to a friend
The Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global
Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community
internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source
must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address 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 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.
Disclaimer: The
views expressed in the above articles are the sole responsibility of the
author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on
Globalization.
To express your
opinion on on or more of the articles in this collection, join the
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.
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.