This
article is part of the DaanSpeak-series
Why
war?
US and Israel ready for preemptive (nuclear) attack
The coming war against Iran
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12Oct2005 - 
Email
this article.
The
Dutch in the original
article has been translated into English by Ben Kearney.
Twenty-two
countries, among them Germany, France and the
Netherlands,
are laying the foundations for a war against Iran by endorsing the resolution
of the IAEA. This is a venture that could potentially lead to serious
consequences. The
US and Israel are getting ready for a preemptive strike against Iran,
and the US is not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons. All that remains
is a provocation, a second September 11th for example,
carried out by Israel or the US.
The
world is massing itself against Iran by endorsing the IAEA's aggressive
move, which threatens to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. We addressed
the legitimacy of this process earlier in this series of articles, but
of immediate interest at this point is the product of the conspiracy
against Iran by the IAEA and the twenty-two undersigning
countries, which might be used as the basis for a preemptive strike by
Israel and the US. This indirect threat to world peace was rewarded last
week when the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on the IAEA and
its chairman, Mohamed
ElBaradei. The Iranian news agency MehrNews saw the
writing on the wall: 'Encouraged by his Nobel Peace Prize, International
Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will be able
to take more serious measures against Iran and drift away from the neutral
stance that the IAEA is supposed to take, [political analyst] Dr. Ali
Khorram said on Monday.' Examples of previous recipients of the Nobel
Peace Prize are Yasser Arafat and Henry
Kissinger.
Preparation
for war against Iran resembles Iraq war
The step by step run-up to the Iraq war, in which both military and diplomatic
preparation went hand in hand, looks identical to the current road to
war in Iran. Another step in the direction of war with Iran is the charge made
earlier this month by British Prime Minister Blair that Iran may be responsible
for attacks on English soldiers. The Associated Press headline read:
'Blair: Iran suspected of aiding attacks in Iraq'. Recently, two British SAS-agents
dressed as Arabs -complete with black
wigs- were caught sitting in a car full of explosives in
Basra. These men, along with the secrets they possessed, were of such
great importance that they were freed in a spectacular military operation
in which even tanks were called in. In an extensive
article,
Michael Keefer reveals that the SAS agents were most likely setting up
a false-flag operation with
the ultimate objective of contributing to the division of the country
(read more about this in previous articles in this
series; see also the accompanying map). The goal of starting a war against
Iran is also evident in such tactics, especially now that control of
Iraq is being contested between the minority Sunnis, who enjoyed power
under Saddam, and the majority Shiites, who by and large run the show
now.
In addition to the vague "We cannot be sure" accusations
of Blair, a recent briefing
containing unfounded and suspect information about
Iran was given to key countries by the US, resembling the approach taken
during the lead-up to the Iraq war: '[...]
a non-Western diplomat said the US briefing, carried out in various capitals
ahead of a meeting in
September of the UN atomic watchdog, "looks plausible but there is no hard evidence" giving
direct proof of a nuclear warhead project.' This recent quote could just as
well have been made during preparations for the war on Iraq in 2002.
As DaanSpeak has extensively described, namely in our article on
the Downing Street Memos, the decision to wage war against Iraq was made well
before any international discussion about it was even starting. Even before
September 11th, the intention was there. Public debate, worldwide demonstrations,
diplomatic wrangling - nothing could keep a war in Iraq from becoming a reality;
it was necessary to put up a show, to deceive. And
now it seems that nothing can stop the coming war with Iran: 'So
the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran's
nuclear weapons site. "The
administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike,
president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org. [...]
Said [former CIA operative Vince] Cannistraro of
the administration's policy: "Its
very, very, very dangerous.", reports UPI.
Israeli
military preparations for Iran war
Webster Tarpley
quotes Gerhard
Schröder, who in mid-August spoke to
Bild am Sonntag: 'I consider the military option extremely dangerous.
I can definitely exclude that under my leadership this government would
be a part of it.' On Monday Schröder gave
way to the neocon Angela Merkel. 
Russian
President Vladimir Putin had earlier declared Schröder
the moral victor. This is in line with another recent statement by
Putin concerning the use of nuclear weapons by the US, which he feels
carries the risk of deteriorating into a nuclear conflict. Tarpley fittingly
recognizes in this the spectre of the one nuclear superpower squared
off against the other. Throw another atomic power into the mix, Israel,
and Putin's vision begins to take shape. How does Israel figure into
all of this? A headline in
The Sunday Times earlier this year read: 'Revealed: Israel plans strike
on Iranian nuclear plant'. The Times went on to say: 'ISRAEL
has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets
in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.' There
have already been exercises conducted,
the article explained: 'Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz
uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their
tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher)
commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting
bombs to penetrate underground facilities.' It is also the case that Israeli-trained
Kurds are assisting the US in Iranian territory with the gathering of intelligence
that could be helpful in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Kurds
are in good standing with the US; DaanSpeak reported earlier
on the fact that the Kurds were the ones who had taken Saddam captive,
drugged him, and then handed him over to the Americans.
Israel and US get set for
initial phase of attack on Iran
Alongside the Kurds, Israel and the US have also sent in
the MEK,
a
group of about 10,000 Iranian rebels. '"This
looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation," a
former long-time CIA operator in the region told UPI.' UPI describes how
the US is preparing for the preliminary assault on Iran: 'The
United States is also attempting to erect a covert infrastructure in Iran able
to support US efforts, this source said. It consists of Israelis and
other US assets, using third country passports, who have created a network
of front companies that they own and staff. "It's
a covert infrastructure for material support," a US administration official
said. The network would be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside
Iran, he said. The covert infrastructure could also provide safe houses and the
like, he said. [Former CIA-operative Vince] Cannistraro, who knew of the program,
said: "I doubt
the quality of these kinds or programs," explaining the United States had set
up a similar network just before the hostage-rescue attempt in 1980. "People
forget that the Iranians quickly rolled up that entire network after the rescue
attempt failed," Cannistraro said.' While there may be doubts about the quality
of the infrastructure, the point is that it is now being set up.
Think tank advocates preemptive
strike by Israel
In an article Webster
Tarpley points to a report by
an Israeli think tank entitled ISRAEL’S STRATEGIC FUTURE -
The Final Report of Project Daniel, presented to Prime Minister Sharon of
Israel. 'The
Group suggests strongly and unequivocally that conventional
Israeli preemption against selected enemy nuclear infrastructures now in development
be executed as early as possible, and – wherever possible – in collaboration
with the United States. Where America may be unable or unwilling to act
proactively against these infrastructures, it is essential that Israel be able
and willing to act alone. [...] Preemption may be overt or covert, and
range from “decapitation” to full-scale military operations [...], and that – wherever
possible – it be entirely conventional in nature.'
The stance taken in this report is supported by two American reports
US
Policy Options for Iran (PDF) of the Iran Policy Committee and Iran
-- A New Approach (PDF) from the Committee on the Present Danger.
'Both
papers favored military strikes against suspected nuclear and other weapons
facilities if that was the only way to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear
weapons, and endorsed "regime change" as US policy', writes investigative
journalist Jim Lobe. He explains that an important indication that a war on
Iran is imminent will be the lifting of the MEK's terrorist
designation. The MEK, short for Mujahedin e-Khalq, has been classified
as a terrorist group by the US State Department since 1997,
due to among other things, the killing of a number of American civil servants
in the 1970's.
UPI's Intelligence Correspondent Richard Sale wrote at
the beginning of this year that the MEK is already being employed in Iran, albeit
unofficially.
DaanSpeak
Sign up for our free
mailing list.