Thursday, November 17, 2011

US set and ready to confront Iran

US set and ready to confront Iran

Over the recent months the political rhetoric concerning Iran has become increasingly heated. Early September 2011 a nsnbc source at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina reported that the USA has been actively preparing for a military aggression against Syria, Iran and Hezbollah for months, and that special operations units had been deployed long ago. While politicians, analysts and media assess the plausibility and dangers of a US-led war on Iran, in a discourse styled for public consumption, the actuality of the situation is that the war has been on for years. The questions that ought to be asked are not whether the USA will attack Iran, but rather when the ongoing low intensity conflict will enter a phase of higher intensity, how an attack most likely would be performed, and what the consequences on a regional and global scale would be.

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran

The rhetoric has slowly been heating up for years. When The Republican US-Senator John McCain during his 2007 presidential campaign said “/Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran/” most people throughout the world who heard it thought that it was harmless. The man had no chance to win, he´s a maverick, a loose cannon, a crazy man who just tried to score some cheap points for his election by playing the war hero game. Those who knew who John McCain is, and what positions and influence he has however, knew that it was a threat that needed to be seriously assessed. John McCain is a leading figure in the Republican Party and the Republicans ranking member of the Armed Services Committee (1).

It would be a dangerous mistake to confuse his carefully crafted PR-Image as maverick politician with a John McCain who has close ties to the US-Military-Industrial Complex, and the McCain who is committed to expanding the US-hegemony into Iran by means of a military attack as unavoidable step towards global, full spectrum dominance of the United States of America. The Neo-Conservatives may not currently occupy the White House, but their policy, calling for global primacy of US Military might and global dominance, which requires an attack on Iran, as manifested in “Rebuilding Americas Differences” (2), transcends party politics. The difference between Neo-Conservatives and Democrats with respect to US Military Primacy and full spectrum dominance is one of strategy. The one relies on brute military might, the other on skillful subversion before military might is applied.

In late September 2011, the French Ambassador to the United Nations Gerard Araud openly threatened Iran with military action if it continued on the path of nuclear proliferation (3).

Letting rhetoric and warmongering propaganda be what they are the factual situation is that contrary to the USA, which has openly sold nuclear technology to countries like Pakistan even though the USA has signed the international non-proliferation treaty. Iran has never signed the treaty, and is thus not bound by it.

If Araud was concerned about breaches of non-proliferation treaties he would have to threaten the USA rather than Iran, but then again, the truth is that the rhetoric has nothing to do with concerns about nuclear proliferation, and that it has everything to do with positioning Iran as the rogue state and threat to world peace, so the populations of the USA and EU member states would become more willing to accept an illegal and dangerous military campaign against Iran. On 12 November 2011 Reuters reported that all Conservative presidential candidates had given statements about what they would be doing about Iran´s purported intentions to develop a nuclear bomb (4).

Even though no one spoke of overt military attacks, the candidates statement spanned from tough sanctions to supporting militant subversion and covert military operations that could be denied. That none of the candidates spoke of overt military action is understandable but by no means a signal that it is not being actively prepared, as a reliable nsnbc source at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina reported in early September 2011. Covert military operations by US-Agents, and CIA as well as DIA operatives have most likely been conducted in Iran for years.

One of those covert operations is the support of the Baluchistani Jundullah militia (5 ) which is targeting both military and civilian targets inside Iran, and which is involved in opium and heroin running operations between Afghanistan and Iran. Drug sales have for decades provided part of US Intelligence Services black budgets. Another militant organization is the Peoples Mujahedeen of Iran, MEK.

The MEK (6 ) was originally established with aid from Iraq´s Intelligence Services with the purpose to establish a militant subversion inside Iran. It is still operating, and today most likely with the support of the new Iraqi as well as US Intelligence Services.

The latest days rhetoric about the IAEA report have brought the world one step closer to an overt aggression. In the latest IAEA report (7 ), the IAEA claims that foreign aid has brought Iran closer to developing the capacity to produce nuclear bombs.

According to a report by BBC (8 ) Iran has rejected the IAEA claims as fictitious. In what can only be described as a typical US-Blackmail and Positioning Strategy, the UNSC demands from Iran that it stops it´s 18 year old nuclear enrichment program, until Iran has provided evidence for the fact that it only intends to use its enrichment capacity for peaceful purposes (ibid.). Iranian President Mahmud Ahmedinejad reportedly replied, ” We do not need an atomic bomb. The Iranian nation is wise. It won´t build two atomic bombs while you have 20,000 warheads.“ (ibid.)

The important issue to observe is, that the US backed demand that Iran provides “/evidence/” for it´s peaceful intentions is a hybrid of the US-Blackmail Strategy that was used against Iraq with respect to it´s purported weapons of mass destruction. Former CIA Asset Susan Lindauer, who prior to the overt military aggression against Iraq was working as diplomatic back-channel between Iraq and CIA-Operatives provides an explicit description of the blackmail strategy in her book “Extreme Prejudice“. (9)

The people of Iraq were suffering severely from the sanctions that had been imposed on it due to pressure from the USA. In what prior to the first Gulf War was one of the most developed Arab nations, infant mortality skyrocketed to appalling proportions due to the imposed sanctions. (10 ) According to Lindauer (ibid.) the Iraqi government and diplomats were desperate to have the sanctions lifted and trying everything in their power to comply with the weapons inspectors and US demands. Their problem was, that the USA insisted on Iraq providing evidence for something non-existent. The current US calls for sanctions against Iran and the demand for Iran to provide evidence for its peaceful intentions is bearing a striking resemblance to the criminal strategy the cost over one million Iraqi lives and led up to its criminal invasion and destruction.

Konstantin Kosachev

Russian politicians and diplomats can hardly avoid seeing the striking resemblance between the blackmail of Iraq and the blackmail of Iran either. At a recent meeting of the Russian Parliament, the State Duma, the chairman of the State Duma´s Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev condemned the IAEA report and the allegations against Iran that have been put forward by the USA, France, and Israel. (11 ) According to Voice of Russia (ibid.), Kosachev said, that the recently published IAEA report may be part of a strategy to force a change of power in Tehran or provoke revolts within the country. Kosachev also said that such a scenario would be feasible after the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, adding, that he was surprised by the fact that the IAEA´s accusations against Tehran are not supported by any new evidence of the alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. Kosachev described recent statements by some leaders on possible military operations against Iran as “dangerous” (Ibid).

As how dangerous Russia perceives the military threat against Iran by the USA, France, Turkey, Israel, and other NATO and NATO allied countries is evident when analyzing a recent Russian military exercise. Between 9 and 26 September the Russian, Kazakh, Kyrgiz, Taijik armies deployed 12,000 troops in a military exercise with the code name “Center”. (12)

The troops are part of the Russian-led rapid deployment force. Operation “Center” simulated an Iranian assault on oil fields in the Caspian Sea that are operated by US-American firms, as a response to a military attack against its nuclear facilities. According to Russian Intelligence sources Russia expects that Iran will initiate an immediate military response to any military aggression, and that the rapid response forces were briefed for two stages of the Iranian military response. Stage one, a naval attack along the coast of the Caspian Sea, and stage two, a large scale airborne attack including the Iranian Air Force, Armored Divisions, Marine Battalions, and Infantry Brigades, that would be landing by the Northern and Eastern coastline of the Caspian Sea. The political bearing that the exercise had for the top Russian political and military leadership, and the fact that the exercise was to be understood as an overt warning directed against Western countries political leadership becomes evident by the fact that Russian President Dmitri Medvedjev toured the front on 26 September (ibid).

With the United States, France, Israel, and probably the UK and a number of other nations being set on an aggression against Iran, there are a number of possible scenarios. All of them are equally catastrophic and dangerous.

Scenario one would be to enforce harsh sanctions against Iran, which however is likely to fail at the UNSC. Both Russian and Chinese awareness of the long terms plans behind the US and Allied´s demands for sanctions. Latest since the illegal abuse of the UNSC resolutions on Libya that led to the installation of a NATO proxy regime, destabilization and civil war and occupation, both Russia and China have shown on the example of Syria that they are up to NATO´s colonial ambitions.

Scenario two would be a massive stepping up of the covert operations, including US Special Operations teams and local insurgents, which have been going on ever since the Iran-Iraq war. This strategy would be backed up by subversion strategies similar to those seen in Syria. This strategy however is bound to fail too. Like the Syrian population, the population of Iran stands, in spite of all internal differences, massively behind the Iranian government when it comes to confronting an external threat.

Scenario three would be so called “surgical strikes”, which could be initiated from an Aircraft Carrier, from Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, or any other allied nations territories in the region. It would most likely involve a combined attack by airplanes and missiles. The most likely targets would be key military installations, key nuclear installations, and eventually key figures within the Iranian government. It is not unlikely, not unrealistic, but would trigger an immediate response by Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and put both Russian and Chinese military forces back on highest alert.

Scenario four would be an all out military assault on Iran, beginning with an aerial campaign, to be followed by assaults via Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf Coast, and eventually the Southern Shore of the Caspian Sea. Such a campaign would be supported by airborne assaults in strategic locations. The preparations for such a campaign have according to an anonymous nsnbc source been prepared for months. It would require several staging areas outside the reach of the most prevalent Iranian missiles. The new NATO colony Libya comes to mind as a perfect cover for a staging area.

Whatever the final scenario will be; never since the end of the Second World War has international peace and security been as threatened as today. Both Russia and China are acutely aware of the fact that the USA is set for full spectrum, global military dominance. Both Russia and China are aware that failure to defend Iran as well as Syria would be failure to protect their own nations security, including vital energy supplies. Ever since the discontinuation of the former USSR and the apparent end of the so called cold war, the USA and NATO have been tightening the military net that encircles Russia and China, and both nations are acutely aware that they would not survive militarily or economically if the net was tightened any further.

by Dr. Christof
About nsnbc:
nsnbc is a news-media, established on 28 August 2011 with the purpose to break corporate or state controlled medias embargo on truth. nsnbc publishes articles from journalists, authors and experts from all continents. nsnbc was established and is edited by Dr. Christof Lehmann with the intention to bring you daily no-spin reporting, in depth analysis and opinion from throughout the world. nsnbc is politically and economically independent.

See also Implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement and relevant provisions of
Security Council resolutions in the
Islamic Republic of Iran
Report by the Director General of the IAEA

Seize BP Petition button

1 comment:

Saga said...

Very well thought out. I think all the stuff being said about US and Israel not being inclined to attack Iran should be taken with a pinch of salt especially considering that everything being done on the ground are to the contrary.