Dit
artikel is deel van de DaanSpeak-serie
Waarom
oorlog?
Grote implicaties gevreesd
De komende oorlog tegen Iran
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
26sept05 - 
Email
dit artikel.
This article is also available in English.
Het
natuurgeweld in de VS heeft
niet kunnen voorkomen dat de plannen om Iran aan te vallen nog steeds
actueel zijn. Een oorlog tegen Iran wordt door de VS en Israël gezien
als een mogelijkheid om uiteenlopende strategische doelen te bereiken.
Militaire plannen, wetgeving en mentale manipulaties worden nu voorbereid
en afgerond teneinde een oorlog tegen Iran te realiseren.
In twee recente artikelen ziet auteur Webster
Tarpley 'feverish US-UK preparations for a new 9/11 of state-sponsored, false
flag synthetic terrorism which is intended in the intentions of the terrorist
controllers in London and Washington to set the stage for the attack on Iran,
as well as for martial law austerity dictatorships throughout the English-speaking
world, and beyond.' Tarpley is schrijver van een boek over de rol van geheime
diensten in het creëren van de cover stories bij
11 september en het uitvoeren van wat er daadwerkelijk op die dag is gebeurd.
Het boek is
getiteld 9/11 - Synthetic Terror - Made in USA; 'sythetische terreur'
omdat de terreur op 911 niet afkomstig was van 'echte' terroristen, maar van
de VS zelf. Hij sprak ook
in Amsterdam tijdens de tournee van
Jimmy Walter die tot doel had de waarheid bij 11 september aan het licht te brengen.
DaanSpeak sprak daar
ook.
VS zeggen geweld niet te schuwen
In een
uitgebreid artikel wijst
Tarpley op de uitspraak van
Bush, medio augustus, dat de VS geweld tegen Iran niet zullen schuwen: 'As
I say, all options are on the table. The use of force is the last option
for any president and you know, we've used force in the recent past to secure
our country'. Bush' vice-president was al eerder begonnen met het slaan op de
oorlogstrommels door te zeggen dat
'sterkere actie' nodig was als Iran niet zou inbinden. Teheran is al even stevig
in zijn uitspraken, noteert de
BBC: '[Voormalig president van Iran] Mr Rafsanjani said western opposition to
Iran's decision to resume its nuclear programme would, as he put it, cost them
dearly.' Het kon wel eens een minder boude uitspraak zijn dan het lijkt. Iran
is namelijk geen murw geslagen Irak; Irak was jarenlang voorbewerkt, zoals we
eerder schreven,
onder de kop Downing Street Memo's: Irakoorlog begon vóór begin en
Iran is een groot en sterk land. Het
is onwaarschijnlijk dat een confrontatie met Iran een regionale kwestie zal blijken.
Insiders
verwachten oorlog tegen Iran
Na de verkiezingen in
de VS die Bush in het zadel hielden, noteerde journalist Seymour Hersh in een artikel getiteld The
Coming Wars: '"This is a war against terrorism, and Iraq is just one campaign.
The Bush Administration is looking at this as a huge war zone,” the former high-level
intelligence official told me. “Next, we're going to have
the Iranian campaign. We've declared war and the bad guys, wherever they
are, are the enemy. This is the last hurrah—we've got four years, and want to
come out of this saying we won the war on terrorism".' Hersh:
'In my interviews, I was repeatedly told that the next strategic target was Iran. “Everyone
is saying, ‘You can't be serious about targeting Iran. Look at Iraq,' ” the former
intelligence official told me. “But they say, ‘We've got some lessons learned—not
militarily, but how we did it politically. We're not going to rely on agency
pissants.' No loose ends, and that's why the C.I.A. is out of there.” [...] The
hawks in the Administration believe that it will soon become clear that the Europeans'
negotiated approach cannot succeed, and that at that time the Administration
will act. “We're not dealing with a set of National Security Council option papers
here,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “They've already
passed that wicket. It's not if we're going to do anything against Iran. They're
doing it.”'
Leger
VS is begonnen met maken aanvalsplannen
Een belangrijk
argument bij de aanname dat een Amerikaanse aanval op Iran niet ver af is, is
een deel van
de rubriek Deep
Background van Philip Giraldi, voormalig CIA-agent en werkzaam voor Cannistraro
Associates, een bedrijf van Vince
Cannistraro, een voormalig contra-terrorisme-chef van de CIA die als deskundige
voor televisiekanaal ABC rapporteerde over de leugens en het bedrog van de Bushregering
bij het organiseren van
de Irakoorlog. Giraldi maakt zijn rubriek voor The American Conservative, een
publicatie van conservatieven die het niet
eens zijn met de neoconservatieve koers van de Bushregering. 
Hij
beschrijft hoe
de oorlogsplanners van
USSTRATCOM in opdracht van de regering anticiperen op
een agressieve daad van Iran door
het voorbereiden van een conventionele en/of nucleaire reactie (lees: een aanval
op Iran): 'In Washington it is hardly a secret that the same people in and around
the administration who brought you Iraq are preparing to do the same for Iran.
The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office,
has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM)
with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type
terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault
on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. [...] 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. [...]'.
Voorbereidingen
Iranoorlog in volle gang
Schrijft Hersh: 'The
Administration has been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran
at least since last summer [2004]. Much of the focus is on the accumulation
of intelligence and targeting information on Iranian nuclear, chemical, and
missile sites, both declared and suspected. The goal is to identify and isolate
three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision
strikes and short-term commando raids. “The civilians in the Pentagon
want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as
possible,” the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me.
Some of the missions involve extraordinary coöperation. For example, the
former high-level intelligence official told me that an
American commando task force has been set up in South Asia and is now working
closely with a group of Pakistani scientists and technicians who had
dealt with Iranian counterparts.'
'There has also been close, and largely unacknowledged, coöperation
with Israel. The government consultant with ties to the
Pentagon said that the Defense Department civilians, under the leadership of
Douglas Feith, have been working with Israeli planners and consultants to develop
and refine potential nuclear, chemical-weapons, and missile targets inside Iran.
[...] “They
believe that about three-quarters of the potential targets can be destroyed from
the air, and a quarter are too close to population centers, or buried too deep,
to be targeted,” the consultant said. Inevitably, he added, some suspicious sites
need to be checked out by American or Israeli commando teams—in on-the-ground
surveillance—before being targeted.'
In februari schrijft The
Washingon Post: 'The Bush administration has been flying
surveillance drones over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear
weapons programs and detect weaknesses in air defenses, according to three U.S.
officials with detailed knowledge of the secret effort. [...]
The aerial espionage is standard in military preparations for an eventual air
attack and is also employed as a tool for intimidation.' Maar ook: '"It
was clear to our air force that the entire intention here was to get us to turn
on our radar," the official said. That tactic, designed
to contribute information to what the military calls an "enemy order
of battle," was used by the U.S. military in the
Korean and Vietnam wars, against the Soviets and the Chinese, and in
both Iraq wars. "By coaxing the Iranians to turn on their radar, we can
learn all about their defense systems, including the frequencies they
are operating on, the range of their radar and, of course, where their
weaknesses lie," said
Thomas Keaney, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director
of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University. But it did
not work. "The United States must have forgotten that they
trained half our guys," the Iranian official said.'
Voormalig Labour-minister Tony Benn schrijft in een commentaar in
The Guardian over de wijze van aanvallen: 'It is inconceivable that
the White House can be contemplating an invasion of Iran, and what must be
intended is a US airstrike, or airstrikes, on Iranian nuclear installations,
comparable to Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1981. Israel has publicly hinted
that it might do the same again to prevent Iran developing nuclear nuclear
weapons. Such an attack, whether by the US or Israel, would be in breach of
the UN Charter, as was the invasion of Iraq. But neither Bush, Sharon nor Blair
would take any notice of that.'
DaanSpeak
Meld je aan voor de gratis
mailing list.