_____________________________________

 

 

The Destabilization of Pakistan

 

www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7705

 

Global Research December 30, 2007

 

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

 

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto has created conditions which contribute to the ongoing destabilization and fragmentation of Pakistan as a Nation.

 

The process of US sponsored "regime change", which normally consists in the re-formation of a fresh proxy government under new leaders has been broken. Discredited in the eyes of Pakistani public opinion, General Pervez Musharaf cannot remain in the seat of political power. But at the same time, the fake elections supported by the "international community" scheduled for January 2008, even if they were to be carried out, would not be accepted as legitimate, thereby creating a political impasse.

 

There are indications that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto was anticipated by US officials:

 

"It has been known for months that the Bush-Cheney administration and its allies have been maneuvering to strengthen their political control of Pakistan, paving the way for the expansion and deepening of the "war on terrorism" across the region.

 

Various American destabilization plans, known for months by officials and analysts, proposed the toppling of Pakistan's military...

 

The assassination of Bhutto appears to have been anticipated. There were even reports of "chatter" among US officials about the possible assassinations of either Pervez Musharraf or Benazir Bhutto, well before the actual attempts took place. (Larry Chin, Global Research, 29 December 2007)

 

Political Impasse

 

"Regime change" with a view to ensuring continuity under military rule is no longer the main thrust of US foreign policy. The regime of Pervez Musharraf cannot prevail. Washington's foreign policy course is to actively promote the political fragmentation and balkanization of Pakistan as a nation.

 

A new political leadership is anticipated but in all likelihood it will take on a very different shape, in relation to previous US sponsored regimes. One can expect that Washington will push for a compliant political leadership, with no commitment to the national interest, a leadership which will serve US imperial interests, while concurrently contributing under the disguise of "decentralization", to the weakening of the central government and the fracture of Pakistan's fragile federal structure.

 

The political impasse is deliberate. It is part of an evolving US foreign policy agenda, which favors disruption and disarray in the structures of the Pakistani State. Indirect rule by the Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms of US interference, including an expanded US military presence inside Pakistan.

 

This expanded military presence is also dictated by the Middle East-Central Asia geopolitical situation and Washington's ongoing plans to extend the Middle East war to a much broader area.

 

The US has several military bases in Pakistan. It controls the country's air space. According to a recent report: "U.S. Special Forces are expected to vastly expand their presence in Pakistan, as part of an effort to train and support indigenous counter-insurgency forces and clandestine counterterrorism units" (William Arkin, Washington Post, December 2007).

 

The official justification and pretext for an increased military presence in Pakistan is to extend the "war on terrorism". Concurrently, to justify its counterrorism program, Washington is also beefing up its covert support to the "terrorists."

 

The Balkanization of Pakistan

 

Already in 2005, a report by the US National Intelligence Council and the CIA forecast a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan "in a decade with the country riven by civil war, bloodshed and inter-provincial rivalries, as seen recently in Balochistan." (Energy Compass, 2 March 2005). According to the NIC-CIA, Pakistan is slated to become a "failed state" by 2015, "as it would be affected by civil war, complete Talibanisation and struggle for control of its nuclear weapons". (Quoted by former Pakistan High Commissioner to UK, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Times of India, 13 February 2005):

 

"Nascent democratic reforms will produce little change in the face of opposition from an entrenched political elite and radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the Central government's control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland and the economic hub of Karachi," the former diplomat quoted the NIC-CIA report as saying.

 

Expressing apprehension, Hasan asked, "are our military rulers working on a similar agenda or something that has been laid out for them in the various assessment reports over the years by the National Intelligence Council in joint collaboration with CIA?" (Ibid)

 

Continuity, characterized by the dominant role of the Pakistani military and intelligence has been scrapped in favor of political breakup and balkanization.

 

According to the NIC-CIA scenario, which Washington intends to carry out: "Pakistan will not recover easily from decades of political and economic mismanagement, divisive policies, lawlessness, corruption and ethnic friction," (Ibid) .

 

The US course consists in fomenting social, ethnic and factional divisions and political fragmentation, including the territorial breakup of Pakistan. This course of action is also dictated by US war plans in relation to both Afghanistan and Iran.

 

This US agenda for Pakistan is similar to that applied throughout the broader Middle East Central Asian region. US strategy, supported by covert intelligence operations, consists in triggering ethnic and religious strife, abetting and financing secessionist movements while also weakening the institutions of the central government.

 

The broader objective is to fracture the Nation State and redraw the borders of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

Pakistan's Oil and Gas reserves

 

Pakistan's extensive oil and gas reserves, largely located in Balochistan province, as well as its pipeline corridors are considered strategic by the Anglo-American alliance, requiring the concurrent militarization of Pakistani territory.

 

Balochistan comprises more than 40 percent of Pakistan's land mass, possesses important reserves of oil and natural gas as well as extensive mineral resources.

 

The Iran-India pipeline corridor is slated to transit through Balochistan. Balochistan also possesses a deap sea port largely financed by China located at Gwadar, on the Arabian Sea, not far from the Straits of Hormuz where 30 % of the world's daily oil supply moves by ship or pipeline. (Asia News.it, 29 December 2007)

 

Pakistan has an estimated 25.1 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves of which 19 trillion are located in Balochistan. Among foreign oil and gas contractors in Balochistan are BP, Italy's ENI, Austria's OMV, and Australia's BHP. It is worth noting that Pakistan's State oil and gas companies, including PPL which has the largest stake in the Sui oil fields of Balochistan are up for privatization under IMF-World Bank supervision.

 

According to the Oil and Gas Journal (OGJ), Pakistan had proven oil reserves of 300 million barrels, most of which are located in Balochistan. Other estimates place Balochistan oil reserves at an estimated six trillion barrels of oil reserves both on-shore and off-shore (Environment News Service, 27 October 2006) .

 

Covert Support to Balochistan Separatists

 

Balochistan's strategic energy reserves have a bearing on the separatist agenda. Following a familiar pattern, there are indications that the Baloch insurgency is being supported and abetted by Britain and the US.

 

The Balochi national resistance movement dates back to the late 1940s, when Balochistan was invaded by Pakistan. In the current geopolitical context, the separatist movement is in the process of being hijacked by foreign powers.

 

British intelligence is allegedly providing covert support to Balochistan separatists (which from the outset have been repressed by Pakistan's military). In June 2006, Pakistan's Senate Committee on Defence accused British intelligence of "abetting the insurgency in the province bordering Iran" Balochistan..(Press Trust of India, 9 August 2006). Ten British MPs were involved in a closed door session of the Senate Committee on Defence regarding the alleged support of Britain's Secret Service to Balcoh separatists (Ibid). Also of relevance are reports of CIA and Mossad support to Baloch rebels in Iran and Southern Afghanistan.

 

It would appear that Britain and the US are supporting both sides. The US is providing American F-16 jets to the Pakistani military, which are being used to bomb Baloch villages in Balochistan. Meanwhile, British alleged covert support to the separatist movement (according to the Pakistani Senate Committee) contributes to weakening the central government.

 

The stated purpose of US counter-terrorism is to provide covert support as well as as training to "Liberation Armies" ultimately with a view to destabilizing sovereign governments. In Kosovo, the training of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in the 1990s had been entrusted to a private mercenary company, Military Professional Resources Inc (MPRI), on contract to the Pentagon.

 

The BLA bears a canny resemblance to Kosovo's KLA, which was financed by the drug trade and supported by the CIA and Germany's Bundes Nachrichten Dienst

(BND).

 

The BLA emerged shortly after the 1999 military coup. It has no tangible links to the Baloch resistance movement, which developed since the late

1940s. An aura of mystery surrounds the leadership of the BLA.

 

 

Washington favors the creation of a "Greater Balochistan" which would integrate the Baloch areas of Pakistan with those of Iran and possibly the Southern tip of Afghanistan, thereby leading to a process of political fracturing in both Iran and Pakistan.

 

"The US is using Balochi nationalism for staging an insurgency inside Iran's Sistan-Balochistan province. The 'war on terror' in Afghanistan gives a useful political backdrop for the ascendancy of Balochi militancy" (See Global Research, 6 March 2007).

 

Military scholar Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters writing in the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal, suggests, in no uncertain terms that Pakistan should be broken up, leading to the formation of a separate country: "Greater Balochistan" or "Free Balochistan" (see Map below). The latter would incorporate the Pakistani and Iranian Baloch provinces into a single political entity.

 

In turn, according to Peters, Pakistan's North West Frontier Province (NWFP) should be incorporated into Afghanistan "because of its linguistic and ethnic affinity". This proposed fragmentation, which broadly reflects US foreign policy, would reduce Pakistani territory to approximately 50 percent of its present land area. (See map). Pakistan would also loose a large part of its coastline on the Arabian Sea.

 

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO's Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, have most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles. (See Mahdi D. Nazemroaya, Global Research, 18 November 2006)

 

"Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted, before he retired to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon's foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy." (Ibid)

 

It is worth noting that secessionist tendencies are not limited to Balochistan. There are separatist groups in Sindh province, which are largely based on opposition to the Punjabi-dominated military regime of General Pervez Musharraf (For Further details see Selig Harrisson, Le Monde diplomatique, October 2006)

 

"Strong Economic Medicine": Weakening Pakistan's Central Government

 

Pakistan has a federal structure based on federal provincial transfers. Under a federal fiscal structure, the central government transfers financial resources to the provinces, with a view to supporting provincial based programs. When these transfers are frozen as occurred in Yugoslavia in January 1990, on orders of the IMF, the federal fiscal structure collapses:

 

"State revenues that should have gone as transfer payments to the republics of the Yugoslav federation went instead to service Belgrade's debt ... . The republics were largely left to their own devices. ... The budget cuts requiring the redirection of federal revenues towards debt servicing, were conducive to the suspension of transfer payments by Belgrade to the governments of the Republics and Autonomous Provinces.

 

In one fell swoop, the reformers had engineered the final collapse of Yugoslavia's federal fiscal structure and mortally wounded its federal political institutions. By cutting the financial arteries between Belgrade and the republics, the reforms fueled secessionist tendencies that fed on economic factors as well as ethnic divisions, virtually ensuring the de facto secession of the republics. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Second Edition, Global Research, Montreal, 2003, Chapter 17.)

 

It is by no means accidental that the 2005 National Intelligence Council- CIA report had predicted a "Yugoslav-like fate" for Pakistan pointing to the impacts of "economic mismanagement" as one of the causes of political break-up and balkanization.

 

"Economic mismanagement" is a term used by the Washington based international financial institutions to describe the chaos which results from not fully abiding by the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program. In actual fact, the "economic mismanagement" and chaos is the outcome of IMF-World Bank prescriptions, which invariably trigger hyperinflation and precipitate indebted countries into extreme poverty.

 

Pakistan has been subjected to the same deadly IMF "economic medicine" as Yugoslavia: In 1999, in the immediate wake of the coup d'Etat which brought General Pervez Musharaf to the helm of the military government, an IMF economic package, which included currency devaluation and drastic austerity measures, was imposed on Pakistan. Pakistan's external debt is of the order of US$40 billion. The IMF's "debt reduction" under the package was conditional upon the sell-off to foreign capital of the most profitable State owned enterprises (including the oil and gas facilities in Balochistan) at rockbottom prices .

 

Musharaf's Finance Minister was chosen by Wall Street, which is not an unusual practice. The military rulers appointed at Wall Street's behest, a vice-president of Citigroup, Shaukat Aziz, who at the time was head of CitiGroup's Global Private Banking. (See WSWS.org, 30 October 1999). CitiGroup is among the largest commercial foreign banking institutions in Pakistan.

 

There are obvious similarities in the nature of US covert intelligence operations applied in country after country in different parts of the so-called "developing World". These covert operation, including the organisation of military coups, are often synchronized with the imposition of IMF-World Bank macro-economic reforms. In this regard, Yugoslavia's federal fiscal structure collapsed in 1990 leading to mass poverty and heightened ethnic and social divisions. The US and NATO sponsored "civil war" launched in mid-1991 consisted in coveting Islamic groups as well as channeling covert support to separatist paramilitary armies in Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia.

 

A similar "civil war" scenario has been envisaged for Pakistan by the National Intelligence Council and the CIA: From the point of view of US intelligence, which has a longstanding experience in abetting separatist "liberation armies", "Greater Albania" is to Kosovo what "Greater Balochistan" is to Pakistan's Southeastern Balochistan province. Similarly, the KLA is Washington's chosen model, to be replicated in Balochistan province.

 

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto

 

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in Rawalpindi, no ordinary city. Rawalpindi is a military city host to the headquarters of the Pakistani Armed Forces and Military Intelligence (ISI). Ironically Bhutto was assassinated in an urban area tightly controlled and guarded by the military police and the country's elite forces. Rawalpindi is swarming with ISI intelligence officials, which invariably infiltrate political rallies. Her assassination was not a haphazard event.

 

Without evidence, quoting Pakistan government sources, the Western media in chorus has highlighted the role of Al-Qaeda, while also focusing on the the possible involvement of the ISI.

 

What these interpretations do not mention is that the ISI continues to play a key role in overseeing Al Qaeda on behalf of US intelligence. The press reports fail to mention two important and well documented facts:

 

1) the ISI maintains close ties to the CIA. The ISI is virtually an appendage of the CIA.

 

2) Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA. The ISI provides covert support to Al Qaeda, acting on behalf of US intelligence.

 

The involvement of either Al Qaeda and/or the ISI would suggest that US intelligence was cognizant and/or implicated in the assassination plot.

 

____________________________________

 

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America's "War on Terrorism" Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

_____________________________________

 

 

 

Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran

 

September 20, 2007

 

by Michel Chossudovsky

 

Global Research, September 16, 2007

 

Quoting official sources, the Western media is now confirming, rather belatedly, that the Bush Administration's war plans directed against Iran are "for real" and should be taken seriously.

 

"Punitive bombings" directed against Tehran could be launched within the next few months.

 

The diplomatic mode has been switched off: The Pentagon is said to be "taking steps to ensure military confrontation with Iran" because diplomatic initiatives have allegedly failed to reach a solution.

 

These diabolical statements come within barely a couple of weeks following the release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report. The later confirms unequivocally that Iran's nuclear program is of a civilian nature and that Iran has neither the intention nor the capabilities to develop nuclear weapons:

 

Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the Agency meaning IAEA confirmed that there are no other remaining issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and activities.

 

Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

 

Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. (IAEA Report, italics added)

 

At the same token, the IAEA report is a slap in the face for Washington. It confirms the lack of legitimacy and criminal nature of US foreign policy as well as Washington's resolve to violate international law:

 

"The Bush administration's abrupt dismissal of last Thursday's IAEA report is one more sign that Washington has no interest in a diplomatic resolution to its confrontation with Tehran. Following Bush's bellicose denunciations of Iran last week, the US has reiterated its intention to push for tougher UN sanctions against Tehran this month." (Peter Symond, Global Research, September 2007)

 

No Public Outcry

 

Despite the overtly aggressive nature of US statements, these war plans directed against Iran, which in a real sense threaten the future of humanity, are not the object of public concern or debate. A US sponsored pre-emptive war, using thermonuclear weapons, which according to "authoritative" scientific opinion (on contract to the Pentagon), are "harmless to the surrounding civilian population" is simply not front page news in relation to any other trivial topic.

 

FULL: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6792

_____________________________________

 

 

 

 

Canada's Sovereignty in Jeopardy: the Militarization of North America

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18207.htm

 

By Michel Chossudovsky

 

08/18/07 "Global Research" -- -- Canadian jurisdiction over its Northern territories was redefined, following an April 2002 military agreement between Ottawa and Washington. This agreement allows for the deployment of US troops anywhere in Canada, as well as the stationing of US warships in Canada's territorial waters.

 

Following the creation of US Northern Command in April 2002, Washington announced unilaterally that NORTHCOM's territorial jurisdiction (land, sea, air) extended from the Caribbean basin to the Canadian arctic territories.

 

"The new command was given responsibility for the continental United States, Canada, Mexico, portions of the Caribbean and the contiguous waters in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans up to 500 miles off the North American coastline. NorthCom's mandate is to "provide a necessary focus for continental aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for the nation's civil authorities in times of national need."

 

(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership - July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm

 

NORTHCOM's stated mandate was to "provide a necessary focus for (continental) aerospace, land and sea defenses, and critical support for (the) nation's (US) civil authorities in times of national need."

 

(Canada-US Relations - Defense Partnership - July 2003, Canadian American Strategic Review (CASR), http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-lagasse1.htm)

 

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld boasted that "the NORTHCOM - with all of North America as its geographic command - 'is part of the greatest transformation of the Unified Command Plan (UCP) since its inception in 1947.'" (Ibid)

 

Canada and US Northern Command

 

In December 2002, following the refusal of (former) Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to join US Northern Command (NORTHCOM), an interim bi- national military authority entitled the Binational Planning Group (BPG) was established.

 

Canadian membership in NORTHCOM would have implied the integration of Canada's military command structures with those of the US. That option had been temporarily deferred by the Chrétien government, through the creation of the Binational Planning Group (BPG).

 

The BPG's formal mandate in 2002 was to extend the jurisdiction of the US-Canada North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) to cover sea, land and "civil forces",

 

"to improve current Canada-United States arrangements to defend against primarily maritime threats to the continent and respond to land-based attacks, should they occur."

 

Although never acknowledged in official documents, the BPG was in fact established to prepare for the merger of NORAD and NORTHCOM, thereby creating de facto conditions for Canada to join US Northern Command.

 

The "Group" described as an "independent" military authority was integrated from the outset in December 2002 into the command structures of NORAD and NORTHCOM, both operating out the same headquarters at the Paterson Air Force base in Colorado. In practice, the "Group" functioned under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command, which is controlled by the US Department of Defense.

 

In December 2004, in the context of President Bush's visit to Ottawa, it was agreed that the mandate of the BPG would be extended to May 2006. It was understood that this extension was intended to set the stage for Canada's membership in NORTHCOM.

 

In March 2006, two months before the end of its mandate, the BPG published a task force document on North American security issues:

 

"'A continental approach' to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, 'which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' (quoted in Homeland Defense watch, 20 July 2006)

 

The BPG task force report called for the establishment of a "maritime mission" for NORAD including a maritime warning system. The report acted as a blueprint for the renegotiation of NORAD, which was implemented immediately following the release of the report.

 

On April 28, 2006, an agreement negotiated behind closed doors was signed between the US and Canada.

 

The renewed NORAD agreement was signed in Ottawa by the US ambassador and the Canadian Minister of Defense Gordon O'Connor, without prior debate in the Canadian Parliament. The House of Commons was allowed to rubberstamp a fait accompli, an agreement which had already been signed by the two governments.

 

"'A continental approach to defense and security could facilitate binational maritime domain awareness and a combined response to potential threats, "which transcends Canadian and U.S. borders, domains, defense and security departments and agencies,' the report says." (Homeland Defense Watch, May 8, 2006)

 

While NORAD still exists in name, its organizational structure coincides with that of NORTHCOM. Following the April 28, 2006 agreement, in practical terms, NORAD has been merged into USNORTHCOM.

 

NORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gene Renuart, USAF happens to be Commander of NORAD, Maj. Gen. Paul J. Sullivan who is NORTHCOM Chief of Staff, is Chief of Staff of NORAD.

 

With a exception of a token Canadian General, who occupies the position of Deputy Commander of NORAD, the leadership of NORAD coincides with that of NORTHCOM. (See photo gallery below).

 

These two military authorities are identical in structure, they occupy the same facilities at the Peterson Air Force base in Colorado.

 

There was no official announcement of the renewed NORAD agreement, which hands over control of Canada's territorial waters to the US, nor was there media coverage of this far-reaching decision.

 

The Deployment of US Troops on Canadian Soil

 

At the outset of US Northern Command in April 2002, Canada accepted the right of the US to deploy US troops on Canadian soil.

 

"U.S. troops could be deployed to Canada and Canadian troops could cross the border into the United States if the continent was attacked by terrorists who do not respect borders, according to an agreement announced by U.S. and Canadian officials." (Edmunton Sun, 11 September 2002)

 

With the creation of the BPG in December 2002, a binational "Civil Assistance Plan" was established. The latter described the precise "conditions for deploying U.S. troops in Canada, or vice versa, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or natural disaster." (quoted in Inside the Army, 5 September 2005).

 

Canadian Sovereignty

 

In August 2006, the US State Department confirmed that a new NORAD Agreement had entered into force, while emphasizing that "the maritime domain awareness component was of 'indefinite duration,' albeit subject to periodic review." (US Federal News, 1 August 2006). In March 2007, the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirmed that the NORAD Agreement had been formally renewed, to include a maritime warning system. In Canada, in contrast, there has been a deafening silence.

 

In Canada, the renewed NORAD agreement went virtually unnoticed. There was no official pronouncement by the Canadian government of Stephen Harper. There was no analysis or commentary of its significance and implications for Canadian territorial sovereignty. The agreement was barely reported by the Canadian media.

 

Operating under a "North American" emblem (i.e. a North American Command), the US military would have jurisdiction over Canadian territory from coast to coast; extending from the St Laurence Valley to the Queen Elizabeth archipelago in the Canadian Arctic. The agreement would allow for the establishment of "North American" military bases on Canadian territory. From an economic standpoint, it would also integrate the Canadian North, with its vast resources in energy and raw materials, with Alaska.

 

Ottawa's Military Facility in Resolute Bay

 

Ottawa's July 2007 decision to establish a military facility in Resolute Bay in the Northwest Passage was not intended to reassert "Canadian sovereignty. In fact quite the opposite. It was established in consultation with Washington. A deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island is also envisaged.

 

The US administration is firmly behind the Canadian government's decision. The latter does not "reassert Canadian sovereignty". Quite the opposite. It is a means to eventually establish US territorial control over Canada's entire Arctic region including its waterways. This territory would eventually fall under the jurisdiction of US Northern Command (NORTHCOM).

 

The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP)

 

The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) signed between the US, Canada and Mexico contemplates the formation of a North American Union (NAU), a territorial dominion, extending from the Caribbean to the Canadian arctic territories.

 

The SPP is closely related to the Binational Planning Group initiative. An Independent Task Force sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations calls for the transformation of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) into a "multiservice Defense Command". The CFR document entitled "North American Community" drafted on behalf of the SPP endorses the BPG March 2006 recommendations:

 

"As recommended in a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group (BPG), NORAD should evolve into a multiservice Defense Command that would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to land and naval as well as air forces engaged in defending the approaches to North America. In addition, Canada and the United States should reinforce other bilateral defense institutions, including the Permanent Joint Board on Defense and Joint Planning Group, and invite Mexico to send observers.

 

(North American Community, Task Force documented sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) together with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales)

 

The accession of Canada to this Multiservice Defense Command, as recommended by the CFR, has already been established, signed and sealed, approved by the Canadian Parliament in May 2006, in the context of the renewal of the NORAD agreement.

 

In all likelihood, the formal merging of "the renewed NORAD" and US NORTHCOM will be on the agenda at the August Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) Summit meeting of President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Calderon at Montebello, Quebec. This decision would lead to the formation of a US-Canada NORTHCOM, with a new name, but with substantially the same NORTHCOM rhetorical mandate of "defending the Northern American Homeland" against terrorist attacks. The military of both the US and Canada would also be called to play an increasing role in civilian law enforcement activities.

 

The real objective underlying the SPP is to militarize civilian institutions and repeal democratic government.

 

"Integration" or the "Annexation" of Canada?

 

Canada is contiguous to "the center of the empire". Territorial control over Canada is part of the US geopolitical and military agenda. It is worth recalling in this regard, that throughout history, the "conquering nation" has expanded on its immediate borders, acquiring control over contiguous territories.

 

Military integration is intimately related to the ongoing process of integration in the spheres of trade, finance and investment. Needless to say, a large part of the Canadian economy is already in the hands of US corporate interests. In turn, the interests of big business in Canada tend to coincide with those of the US.

 

Canada is already a de facto economic protectorate of the USA. NAFTA has not only opened up new avenues for US corporate expansion, it has laid the groundwork under the existing North American umbrella for the post 9/11 integration of military command structures, public security, intelligence and law enforcement.

 

No doubt, Canada's entry into US Northern Command will be presented to public opinion as part of Canada-US "cooperation", as something which is "in the national interest", which "will create jobs for Canadians", and "will make Canada more secure".

 

Ultimately what is at stake is that beneath the rhetoric, Canada will cease to function as a Nation:

 

-Its borders will be controlled by US officials and confidential information on Canadians will be shared with Homeland Security.

 

-US troops and Special Forces will be able to enter Canada as a result of a binational arrangement.

 

-Canadian citizens can be arrested by US officials, acting on behalf of their Canadian counterparts and vice versa.

 

But there is something perhaps even more fundamental in defining and understanding where Canada and Canadians stand as nation.

 

By endorsing a Canada-US "integration" in the spheres of defense, homeland security, police and intelligence, Canada not remains a full fledged member of George W. Bush's "Coalition of the Willing", it will directly participate, through integrated military command structures, in the US war agenda in Central Asia and the Middle East, including the massacre of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture of POWs, the establishment of concentration camps, etc.

 

Canada would no longer have an independent foreign policy. Under an integrated North American Command, a North American national security doctrine would be formulated. Canada would be obliged to embrace Washington's pre-emptive military doctrine, its bogus "war on terrorism which is used as a pretext for waging war in the Middle East. .

 

The Canadian judicial system would be affected. Moreover, binational integration in the areas of Homeland security, immigration, policing of the US-Canada border, not to mention the anti-terrorist legislation, would imply pari passu acceptance of the US sponsored police State, its racist policies, its "ethnic profiling" directed against Muslims, the arbitrary arrest of anti-war activists.

_____________________________________

 

 

 

The Pentagon's "Second 911"

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060810&articleId=2942

 

August 15, 2007

"Another (9/11) attack could create both a justification and an opportunity to retaliate against some known targets" by Michel Chossudovsky

 

One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a broader strategy which brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS, Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)

 

In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

 

This "contingency plan" uses the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.

 

What is diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President is that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran rests on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on America, which has not yet occurred:

 

The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. 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. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American Conservative, 2 August 2005)

 

Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against Syria and Iran?

 

Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not focus on preventing a Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation, much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001, allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one does not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael Keefer points out in an incisive review article:

 

"At a deeper level, it implies that “9/11-type terrorist attacks” are recognized in Cheney’s office and the Pentagon as appropriate means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )

 

In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened, yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).

 

"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State Sponsors (of Terrorism)"

 

In April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack on America.

 

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.

 

The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about them publicly.

 

Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department. (Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

 

This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:

 

"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack. Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets, according to current and former defense officials familiar with the plan.

 

This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject. (italics added, WP 23 April 2006)

 

The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911 attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known targets Iran and Syria".

 

The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World rather than the Middle East which is under attack.

 

Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense" against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are allegedly preparing a Second 911. The underlying objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.

_____________________________________

 

 

 

Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6377

 

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

 

Global Research, July 20, 2007

 

A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and oppose the Iraq war.

 

In substance, the Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:

 

"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."

 

The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to "blocking property" of US citizens and nationals. It targets those "Certain Persons" in America who oppose the Bush Administration's "peace and stability" program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.

 

The Executive Order also targets those "Certain Persons" who are "undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction", or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo- American oil giants.

 

The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of "political reform in Iraq", in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi "government" installed by the occupation forces.

 

Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated.

 

The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement.

 

Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as "an authority to use financial sanctions", there has virtually no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution..

 

Broader implications

 

The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define "who are the criminals" when in fact they they are the criminals.

 

This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of "anti-terrorist" legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government in the case of an impending "national emergency".

 

The war criminals in high office are intent upon repressing all forms of dissent which question the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. The executive order combined with the existing anti terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a critique of the US-led war, etc.

 

In May 2007, Bush issued a major presidential National Security Directive (National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive NSPD 51/HSPD 20), which would suspend constitutional government and instate broad dictatorial powers under martial law in the case of a "Catastrophic Emergency" (Second 9/11 terrorist attack.

 

On July 11, 2007 the CIA published its National Intelligence Estimate which pointed to an imminent Al Qaeda attack on America, a second 9/11 which would according to NSPD 51 immediately be followed by the suspension of constitutional government.

 

NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a "national emergency" without Congressional approval The adoption of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement.

 

The executive order to confiscate the assets of antiwar/peace activists is broadly consistent with NSPD 51. It could be triggered even in the absence of a "Catastrophic emergency" as envisaged under NSPD 51. It goes one step further in "criminalizing" all forms of opposition and dissent. to the US led war and "Homeland Security" agenda.

---

 

 

ANNEX

 

TEXT OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

 

July 17, 2007

 

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

 

I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:

 

Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1),

(3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,

 

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:

 

(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

 

(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

 

(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or

 

(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

 

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

 

Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

 

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

 

Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:

 

(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

 

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and

 

(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

 

Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.

 

Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.

 

Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.

 

Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.

 

Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

 

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

THE WHITE HOUSE,

 

July 17, 2007.

---

 

 

Below is the text of the Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

 

[There has been no response by the US congress or commentary by individual Senators or Representatives.]

 

Office of the Press Secretary July 17, 2007

 

Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act

 

White House News

 

Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

 

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

 

I issued this order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004.

 

In these previous Executive Orders, I ordered various measures to address the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq, the restoration and maintenance of peace and security in that country, and the development of political, administrative, and economic institutions in Iraq.

 

My new order takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315 by blocking the property and interests in property of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

 

The order further authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to designate for blocking those persons determined to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person designated pursuant to this order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

 

I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, the authority to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of my order. I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order I have issued.

 

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

The White House,

 

July 17, 2007.

---

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best America's "War on Terrorism" Second Edition, Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.

_____________________________________

 

 

 

Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission hears nine charges against Bush, Blair, Howard

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070210&articleId=4731

 

Global Research, February 10, 2007 BERNAMA - 2007-02-08

 

Global Research Editor's Note

 

What has been initiated in Kuala Lumpur is a legal procedure distinct from previous war crimes tribunals. The Commission chaired by former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad as well as the Tribunal are integrated by several of Malaysia's most prominent jurists.

 

The war criminals in high office are on the defensive. The office of PM Tony Blair has responded to this initiative by stating that the war on Iraq is legal.

 

Global Research has actively participated in this process, with a view to unseating the war criminals and reversing the tide of war.

 

We will shortly be publishing the presentations to the Expose War Crimes, Criminalise War Conference organised by the Perdana Global peace Organisation, including the transcripts of testimony presented by several war crime victims to the KL War Crimes Commission.

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Kuala Lumpur, 9 February 2007.

 

Feb 8 (NNN-BERNAMA) -- The Kuala Lumpur War Crime Commission chaired by former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad heard nine charges against US President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John Howard for the sufferings of the people in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

 

The charges against the US and its allies were presented by the legal counsel on behalf of the war crime victims, Matthias Chang, before Dr Mahathir and the other five commission members at the final day of the three-day war crimes conference organised by the Perdana Global Peace Conference.

 

Chang said Bush, Blair and Howard, through a deliberate plan of deception, falsehood, forgery and outright lies, misled their respective Congress and Parliament to wage war against Iraq which was a "crime against peace."

 

The trio were also being charged for embarking on a systematic campaign to destroy Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine economically and militarily, he said.

 

He said the third charge against them was for ordering the destruction of vital facilities essential to civilian lives in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine while the fourth was for the bombing of schools, hospitals, mosques, churches, residential areas and historical sites and conveniently labelling the destruction as "collateral damage".

 

The three leaders were also charged with allowing the use of weapons of mass destruction that inflicted indiscriminate death and suffering against civilian targets such as the cluster bomb, napalm bomb, phosporous bomb and depleted uranium ammunition, said Chang.

 

The sixth charge said that Bush, Blair and Howard have fraudulently manipulated the United Nations and the Security Council as well as corrupting its members to commit crimes against peace and war times, he said.

 

Through the aforesaid conduct, Chang said the three had destroyed the environment of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

 

The eighth charge was that Bush, Blair and Howard ordered and condoned the violation of human rights, specifically the civilians in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba as well as other prisons known and unknown in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and anywhere else in the world.

 

The last charge spelled out that Bush, Blair and Howard systematically controlled and manipulated, directed and misinformed the mass media so as to incite war to achieve their military objectives in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

 

Apart from hearing the charges against the three leaders, the commission also heard the presentation from several war crime victims including Najwa J.A. Jalamna, 16, from Jenin, Palestine, Abbas Abid, a survivor of the Fallujah Massacre in Iraq, editor-in-chief of the Al-Intiqad & Al-Manar TV (Lebanon) Ibrahim Mousawi as well as Palestinian Peace Activity's Dr Walid Salah Al-Khatib.

 

Dr Mahathir said the commission was to respond to several petitions of war crime victims and investigate into their complaints.

 

"We appreciate there are other tribunals but there are so many complaints, the other tribunals perhaps are not being able to hear the complaint. We feel there is a need for the setting up of this tribunal and give an opportunity for those war crime victims to voice out their complaints and to seek redress," he said.

 

The commission would investigate complaints of war crimes and thereafter to submit and report to the tribunal that would be set up, which are still at the pro tem stage.

_____________________________________

 

 

 

The War on Iran

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070401&articleId=5247

 

By Michel Chossudovsky

 

Global Research, April 1, 2007

 

 

The US has completed major military maneuvers in the Persian Gulf within a short distance of Iranian territorial waters. This naval deployment is meant to "send a warning to Tehran" following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, which imposes major economic sanctions on Iran in retaliation for its non- compliance with US demands regarding its uranium enrichment program.

 

The US war games off the Iranian coastline involved the participation of two aircraft carriers, the USS John Stennis carrier group and the USS Eisenhower with some 10,000 navy personnel and more than 100 warplanes. The USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier group, which is part of the US Fifth Fleet, entered the Persian Gulf on March 27, escorted by guided-missile cruiser USS Antietam (CG 54). (see http:// www.navy.mil/).

 

USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group (JCSSG) and its air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 9 is said to have conducted "a dual-carrier exercise" together with the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group (IKE CSG):

 

" This marks the first time the Stennis and Eisenhower strike groups have operated together in a joint exercise while deployed to 5th Fleet. This exercise demonstrates the importance the ability for both strike groups to plan and conduct dual task force operations as part of the Navy's commitment to maintaining maritime security and stability in the region."

 

The war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and confrontation following the arrest by Iran of 15 British Royal navy personnel, who were allegedly patrolling inside Iranian territorial waters.

 

The British government, supported by media disinformation, has been using this incident, with a view to creating a situation of confrontation with Iran.

 

The maneuvers coupled with British threats in relation to the unfolding "Iran Hostage Crisis" constitute an act of provocation on the part of the Anglo-American military alliance.

 

These war games in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian sea are the culmination of a broader process of military planning, which started in mid-2003, with the launching of Iran Theater Near Term (TIRANNT). The later contemplated various "scenarios" of US military intervention directed against Iran In early 2004, the scenarios under TIRANNT were incorporated into actual plans of aerial bombings of Iran under "Concept Plan" (CONPLAN) 8022

 

In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

 

In 2005, the US, Turkey and Israel in liaison with NATO were actively involved in the process of planning this military operation, with the stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems. Israel would be actively involved in the military operation.

 

Since last August, the US has conducted a number of military exercises in and around the Persian Gulf. From September through December, a major war games simulation entitled Vigilant Shield O7 was conducted. The stated enemies are Irmingham (Iran), Churya (Chian), Ruebek (Russia) and Nemesis (North Korea).

 

For further details: See Iran Theater Near-Term (TIRANNT), by Michel Chossudovsky

 

According to the US Navy, this latest round of US military maneuvers conducted in late March was on a significantly larger scale when compared to previous deployments. Press reports suggest that these maneuvers constituted the largest deployment of US naval power since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

Almost simultaneously, Iran was also conducting large scale naval exercises in the Persian Gulf, to the extent that both the US and Iran are on a war footing.

 

 

Critical Crossroads

 

A recent Russian press report, quoting intelligence sources, has sounded an alarm. According to a RIA-Novosti report, quoted by the European and Israeli press (Jerusalem Post), the US is planning to initiate air attacks on Iran under " Operation Bite", starting on Good friday, April 6th, targeting both military and civilian sites, including Iran's air defense system:.

 

"Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

 

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

 

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."

 

He also said the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf has for the first time in the past four years reached the level that existed shortly before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

 

Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov, vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Sciences, said last week that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future"

 

While the Russian report must be acknowledged, there is, however, no corroborating evidence, which would enable us to pinpoint the exact timeline of a military attack on Iran.

 

Moreover, there are several important factors which suggest, from a military organizational standpoint, that unless we are dealing with a case of sheer political madness, the Pentagon is not ready to launch an attack on Iran.

 

Key Military Appointments

 

Several key military appointments were made in the course of the month of March. Of significance, Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) on March 16 by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. It is unlikely that Admiral Fallon would activate a military operation directed against Iran, within a few weeks following his appointment as CENTCOM Commander.

 

 

Admiral Fallon

 

Meanwhile, another major military appointment was implemented, which has a direct bearing on Iran war preparations. Admiral Timothy J. Keating Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed on March 26, to head US Pacific Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th fleets. The 7th Fleet Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant command. Keating, who takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an unbending supporter of the "war on terrorism". Pacific Command would be playing a key role in the context of a military operation directed against Iran. http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml

 

Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack on Iraq as commander of US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet.

 

While these key appointments point to a consolidation of the Neoconservative military agenda in the Middle East, they also suggest that the US military would not launch a new phase of the Middle East war prior to consolidating these command appointments, particularly those at the level of US Central Command (CENTCOM), which is the key operational command unit in charge of the Middle East war theater.

 

Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration's war plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with Rumsfeld's successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in Iraq, Admiral Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney. He is also firmly committed to the "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT). CENTCOM would coordinate an attack on Iran from the Middle East war theater.

 

Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in emphasis of CENTCOM's functions in the war theater. The "near term" emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.

 

US Naval Power in the Region

 

At present there are two aircraft carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf region, including the Eisenhower and the Stennis.

 

In comparison, the deployment of naval power prior to the March 2003 blitzkrieg against Iraq was on a significantly larger scale.

 

In the early months of 2003, there were five US aircraft carriers within striking distance of Iraq plus one British aircraft carrier. In the 2003 campaign, three carrier strike groups were present in the Persian Gulf (Lincoln, Constellation and Kitty Hawk) and two other US carrier groups (Roosevelt and Truman) were involved in coordinating the bombing sorties from the Mediterranean.

 

The USS Nimitz nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and its accompanying battle group is currently on its way to the Persian Gulf., which would bring the number of aircraft carriers up to three.

 

It is unlikely that military action would commence before a third aircraft carrier is positioned in the war theater. (Official statements, however, have indicated that the Nimitz would take over from USS Eisenhower and that only two carrier strike groups would be present in the Persian Gulf Arabian Sea region.)

 

Moreover, US weaknesses in the Iraq war theater, Iran's capabilities to retaliate and inflict significant damage on US forces inside Iraq, as well as mounting opposition to the US presidency, have a direct bearing on the timing of a military operation directed against Iran.

 

Iran is Politically Isolated

 

Iran is politically isolated. Unilateralism prevails within the corridors of the UN as well as within the Middle East war theater.

 

The US sponsored resolution in the United Nations Security Council received unanimous support. Proposed amendments to the draft resolution were discarded, following US pressures. The text of the resolution was adopted unanimously.

 

Neither Russia nor China, which have extensive military cooperation agreements with Iran, exercised their veto, nor did they abstain.

 

This UN Security Council "consensus" was reached following crucial shadow diplomacy by Washington to secure the unanimous support of the entire Council including its five permanent members plus Germany, which participated in the formulation of the draft resolution in separate consultations.

 

The UN resolution has totally isolated Iran: China and Russia have been drawn into an alliance of stealth with the US.

 

What is crucial in the Security Council Resolution is that neither China nor Russia will intervene on Iran's side, if Iran is attacked. Moreover, while Russia and China are diplomatic partners of the US in the UN sponsored economic sanctions regime, they are the object of US military threats as confirmed by Operation Vigilant Shield 07. The latter are war game scenarios conducted from September to December 2006, which explicitly target not only Nemesis (North Korea) and Irmingham (Iran) but also Ruebek (Russia) and Churia (China),

 

One would expect that separate "deals" were reached respectively with China and Russia, where certain commitments were met in bilateral discussions by Washington. Both Beijing and Moscow, which are partners in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are in an overtly ambiguous situation of turning a blind eye to US military threats, while also supporting the Iranian military in building its air and ground defense systems in the eventuality of US-NATO-Israeli attacks on Iran, which has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

 

Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has supported Iran's ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

 

Ironically, coinciding with the UN Security Council decision in late March, the Russian press confirmed that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is actually considering an enlargement, which could consist in granting full membership to countries in the SCO

(e.g. Iran) which have currently the status of observers.

 

Meanwhile, the US Congress is at war with the president regarding America's Iraq war strategy, but not a word is muttered on an impending war againsat Iran, as if it were totally irrelevant.

 

The threats are real, an incident could trigger a war.

 

The war criminals in high office desperately need this war to stay in power.

 

The US Congress is unlikely to be able in a minimum way to reverse the decision to go to war with Iran, despite the fact that this would lead to a worldwide catastrophe, an escalation of the war, with an impending police state in America to support the militarization of civilian institutions

 

The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

 

The Neocons in the Bush administration are in control of key military appointments: specifically those pertaining to Central Command

(USCENTCOM), US Stratregic Command (USSTRATCOM) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

 

New military appointments have recently been implemented. The newly appointed commander of USCENTCOM, Admiral Fallon will play a key role in overseeing the military operation in the Middle East War theater.

 

USSTRATCOM headed by General James E. Cartwright, with headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, would play a central decision making and coordinating role in the eventuality of a war on Iran. The administration has demanded USSTRATCOM to elaborate centralized war plans directed against Iran. CENTCOM would largely be involved in carrying out these war plans in the Middle East war theater.

 

It is worth recalling that in 2004, vice President Dick Cheney had demanded that USSTRATCOM draw up a contingency plan directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot. The contingency plan included a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.

 

USSTRATCOM's is described "a global integrator charged with the missions of full-spectrum global strike".

 

USSTRATCOM is in charge of the coordination of command structures under global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). "Day-to-day planning and execution by STRATCOM for the primary mission areas is done by five Joint Functional Component Commands or JFCCs and three other functional components:"

 

TEXT BOX

 

Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) is undergoing several important organizational changes, which have a direct bearing on implementing war plans in relation to Iran . According to USSTRATCOM commander General Cartwright, USSTRATCOM is developing "new functionally aligned organizations designed to improve our operational speed and progress" ( statement to the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee). "We've moved from the old triad construct of the bombers, the submarines and the (intercontinental ballistic missiles) to one that is more integrated and offers the country a broader range of activities that can deter and assure our allies,"

 

" According to Cartwright's statement, the functional components for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; network warfare; global network operations; information operations; integrated missile defense; and combating weapons of mass destruction are at or nearing full operational capability.

 

In addition, STRATCOM is constructing an organizational system "that can be joint from the start, can move to combined or allied type of configuration . so that we don't have to build those in a time of crisis," Cartwright said.

 

"Having a balanced . defense infrastructure underpinned by command and control and the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is critical to the strategy," he said." (U.S. Strategic Command Refines, Fields New Capabilities Mar 9, 2007 - By John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service)

_____________________________________

 

 

 

 

Iran: Pieces in Place for Escalation

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GAR20070116&articleId=4483

 

 

"The fuel for a fire is in place"

 

 

January 20, 2007

 

by Colonel Sam Gardiner, Global Research

 

The Left Coaster - 2007-01-14

 

Editorial Note

 

The following text by Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Retired) confirms our worst fears. The US is in an advanced state of readiness to wage war on Iran.

 

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools, universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war, which contemplates the use of nuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: It is not Iran which is a threat to global security but the United States of America and Israel. Even without the use of nukes, the proposed aerial bombardments could result in escalation, ultimately leading us into a broader war in the Middle East.

 

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in municipalities and at all levels of government. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high office must be challenged.

 

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for its biased coverage of the Middle East war.

 

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State.

 

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 16 January 2007

 

 

 

I do not accept the notion that the first casualty of war is truth. (Col. Sam Gardiner)

 

 

The pieces are moving. They’ll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

 

The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on Tuesday. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

 

Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

 

This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we’ve read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.

 

Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we’re now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we’ve learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

 

We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.

 

The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying.

 

It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we’ll see a few more steps unfold.

 

First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff.

 

The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.

 

I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.

 

I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.

 

As one of the last steps before a strike, we’ll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we’ll only be days away from a strike.

 

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

 

emphasis added by Global Research

 

---

 

 

Sam Gardiner is a Retired Air Force Colonel. He is an expert in military strategy. He has taught at the National War College. He has also taught at the Air War College, the Naval War College and as visiting scholar at the Swedish Defense College. His Truth In These Podia (pdf) explains the propaganda methods used by the Pentagon to "sell the war".

 

See also the following 2005 Global Research review article on Sam Gardiner's analysis of the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence: America's Ministry of Propaganda Exposed, Downing Street Memo is but the Tip of the Iceberg, by Gar Smith

_____________________________________

 

 

 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17206.htm Is The U.S. Planning a Horrific Global Nuclear War? By Michel Chossudovsky

 

01/17/07 "Information Clearing House" -- -- At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.

 

All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defence".

 

The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.

 

As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".

 

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.

 

Military planning focuses on "the most efficient use of force" , i.e. an optimal arrangement of different weapons systems to achieve stated military goals. In this context, nuclear and conventional weapons are considered to be "part of the tool box", from which military commanders can pick and choose the instruments that they require in accordance with "evolving circumstances" in the "war theatre". (None of these weapons in the Pentagon's "tool box", including conventional bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs, mini-nukes, chemical and biological weapons are described as "weapons of mass destruction" when used by the United States of America and its "coalition" partners).

 

The stated objective is to:

 

"ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of nuclear and conventional strike options to address immediate contingencies. Integration of conventional and nuclear forces is therefore crucial to the success of any comprehensive strategy. This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation." (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, p. JP 3-12-13)

 

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts and realities upside down. It not only denies the devastating impacts of nuclear weapons, it states, in no uncertain terms, that nuclear weapons are "safe" and their use in the battlefield will ensure "minimal collateral damage and reduce the probability of escalation". The issue of radioactive fallout is barely acknowledged with regard to tactical nuclear weapons. These various guiding principles which describe nukes as "safe for civilians" constitute a consensus within the military, which is then fed into the military manuals, providing relevant "green light" criteria to geographical commanders in the "war theatre".

 

"Defensive" and "Offensive" Actions

 

While the '2001 Nuclear Posture Review' sets the stage for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, specifically against Iran (see also the main PNAC document 'Rebuilding America`s Defenses, Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century' ). 'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' goes one step further in blurring the distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" military actions:

 

"The new triad offers a mix of strategic offensive and defensive capabilities that includes nuclear and non-nuclear strike capabilities, active and passive defenses, and a robust research, development, and industrial infrastructure to develop, build, and maintain offensive forces and defensive systems ..." (Ibid) (key concepts indicated in added italics)

 

The new nuclear doctrine, however, goes beyond preemptive acts of "self-defense", it calls for "anticipatory action" using nuclear weapons against a "rogue enemy" which allegedly plans to develop WMD at some undefined future date:

 

Responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today. The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist or will exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use. (Ibid, p. III-1)

 

Nukes would serve to prevent a non-existent WMD program (e.g. Iran) prior to its development. This twisted formulation goes far beyond the premises of the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and NPSD 17. which state that the US can retaliate with nuclear weapons if attacked with WMD:

 

"The United States will make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including potentially nuclear weapons – to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies." ... (NSPD 17)

 

"Integration" of Nuclear and Conventional Weapons Plans

 

'The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' outlines the procedures governing the use of nuclear weapons and the nature of the relationship between nuclear and conventional war operations.

 

The DJNO states that the:

 

"use of nuclear weapons within a war theater requires that nuclear and conventional plans be integrated to the greatest extent possible" (DJNO, p 47)

 

The implications of this "integration" are far-reaching because once the decision is taken by the Commander in Chief, namely the President of the United States, to launch a joint conventional-nuclear military operation, there is a risk that tactical nuclear weapons could be used without requesting subsequent presidential approval. In this regard, execution procedures under the jurisdiction of the theater commanders pertaining to nuclear weapons are described as "flexible and allow for changes in the situation":

 

"Geographic combatant commanders are responsible for defining theater objectives and developing nuclear plans required to support those objectives, including selecting targets. When tasked, CDRUSSTRATCOM, as a supporting combatant commander, provides detailed planning support to meet theater planning requirements. All theater nuclear option planning follows prescribed Joint Operation Planning and Execution System procedures to formulate and implement an effective response within the timeframe permitted by the crisis..

 

Since options do not exist for every scenario, combatant commanders must have a capability to perform crisis action planning and execute those plans. Crisis action planning provides the capability to develop new options, or modify existing options, when current limited or major response options are inappropriate.

 

...Command, control, and coordination must be flexible enough to allow the geographic combatant commander to strike time-sensitive targets such as mobile missile launch platforms." 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine'

 

Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO)

 

While presidential approval is formally required to launch a nuclear war, geographic combat commanders would be in charge of Theater Nuclear Operations (TNO), with a mandate not only to implement but also to formulate command decisions pertaining to nuclear weapons. ('Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations Doctrine')

 

We are no longer dealing with "the risk" associated with "an accidental or inadvertent nuclear launch" as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara , but with a military decision-making process which provides military commanders, from the Commander in Chief down to the geographical commanders with discretionary powers to use tactical nuclear weapons.

 

Moreover, because these "smaller" tactical nuclear weapons have been "reclassified" by the Pentagon as "safe for the surrounding civilian population", thereby "minimizing the risk of collateral damage", there are no overriding built-in restrictions which prevent their use. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, Global Research, February 2006) .

 

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 "war theaters".

 

Planned Aerial Attacks on Iran

 

An operational plan to wage aerial attacks on Iran has been in "a state of readiness" since June 2005. Essential military hardware to wage this operation has been deployed.

 

U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons." (Philip Giraldi, "Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War", The American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

 

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation. (For details, 'Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006) [http://www.globalresearch.ca].

 

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction." To implement this mandate, a brand new command unit entitled 'Joint Functional Component Command Space and Global Strike' , or JFCCSGS was created.

 

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike operation" under unified Command and Control.

 

According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

 

"The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter, and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of contingencies...

 

One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."

 

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005).

 

CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre- planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

 

'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese Economic News Wire, op. cit.)

 

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

 

The planning of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive 'NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization' was issued.

 

While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

 

In this regard, a recent press report published in Yeni Safak(Turkey) suggests that the United States is currently:

 

"Deploying B61-type tactical nuclear weapons in southern Iraq as part of a plan to hit Iran from this area if and when Iran responds to an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities". (Ibrahim Karagul, "The US is Deploying Nuclear Weapons in Iraq Against Iran", (Yeni Safak,. 20 December 2005, quoted in BBC Monitoring Europe).

 

 

Israel's Stockpiling of Conventional and Nuclear Weapons

 

Israel is part of the military alliance and is slated to play a major role in the planned attacks on Iran. (For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 )

 

Confirmed by several press reports, Israel has taken delivery, starting in September 2004 of some 500 US produced BLU 109 bunker buster bombs (WP, January 6, 2006). The first procurement order for BLU 109 Bomb Live Unit dates to September 2004. In April 2005, Washington confirmed that Israel was to take delivery of 100 of the more sophisticated bunker buster bomb GBU-28 produced by Lockheed Martin ( Reuters, April 26, 2005). The GBU-28 is described as "a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munitions that uses a 4,400- pound penetrating warhead." It was used in the Iraqi war theater:

 

The Pentagon stated that ... the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, was meant to "contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives." .

 

Mounted on satellite-guided bombs, BLU-109s can be fired from F-15 or F-16 jets, U.S.-made aircraft in Israel's arsenal. This year Israel received the first of a fleet of 102 long-range F-16Is from Washington, its main ally. "Israel very likely manufactures its own bunker busters, but they are not as robust as the 2,000-pound (910 kg) BLUs," Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, told Reuters. (Reuters, 21 September 2004)

 

Israel possesses 100-200 strategic nuclear warheads . In 2003, Washington and Tel Aviv confirmed that they were collaborating in "the deployment of US-supplied Harpoon cruise missiles arme