Archive for September 18th, 2007
Des soldats filmés en train de menacer la foule avec une grenade à Hawarra
Des soldats filmés en train de menacer la foule avec une grenade à Hawarra
Pendant le mois saint de Ramadan, alors que les Palestiniens jeûnent, l’armée israélienne a décidé de fermer le checkpoint Hawarra à Naplouse. Hier dimanche à 11h, deux militants des droits de l’homme voulaient quitter Naplouse en passant par le checkpoint Hawarra, où ils ont trouvé une foule de gens attendant de rentrer chez eux.
Pendant le mois saint de Ramadan, alors que les Palestiniens jeûnent, l’armée israélienne a décidé de fermer le checkpoint Hawarra à Naplouse. Hier dimanche à 11h, deux militants des droits de l’homme voulaient quitter Naplouse en passant par le checkpoint Hawarra, où ils ont trouvé une foule de gens attendant de rentrer chez eux.
Les Palestiniens attendaient pacifiquement, espérant que le checkpoint ouvrirait bientôt. Alors qu’ils attendaient, les soldats sont devenus plus agressifs envers eux, qui étaient coincés sans pouvoir aller nulle part.
Les militants internationaux ont essayé de filmer la situation, mais furent confrontés à l’hostilité des soldats, l’un d’entre eux leur disant : “Vous voulez que je leur tire dessus ?“.
L’armée a continué à harceler les Palestiniens, un soldat menaçant de jeter une grenade dans la foule comme au baseball. Ils ont chassé les militants du checkpoint et le commandant a essayé de voler leur caméra. Heureusement, en réagissant et courant vite, la caméra a été planquée.
Lorsque les soldats ont vu qu’ils n’arriveraient pas à prendre la caméra, ils sont devenus très agressifs, disant à un militant : “Je vais tuer ton ami ! “. Il a couru après l’autre militant qui fuyait avec la caméra. Personne n’a été blessé et les deux militants ont pu s’échapper, mais il faut se souvenir que le matin même, un Palestinien, à Naplouse, n’a pas eu cette chance.
La fermeture des checkpoints à travers toute la Cisjordanie pendant le Ramadan n’est qu’une nouvelle attaque contre les Palestiniens musulmans et la culture palestinienne.
Il y a quelques temps, le gouvernement israélien avait dit qu’il lèverait les restrictions sur les Musulmans de plus de 50 ans qui souhaitaient se déplacer en Cisjordanie et à Jérusalem pendant le Ramadan.
Ce qui s’est avéré faux, quand on voit les longues attentes aux checkpoints, et que Mustapha Barghouthi a été refoulé quatre fois vendredi, alors qu’il essayait d’atteindre la Mosquée Al-Aqsa.
http://www.ism-france.org/news/article.php?id=7453&type=temoignage
Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets
Click to enlarge
Iran threatens missile attacks on US targets
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:30am BST 18/09/2007
Iran threatened to fire long-range missiles at American targets in the Middle East yesterday as the war of words between Teheran and the West continued to escalate.
A senior commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the largest component of the Islamic republic’s armed forces, chose this moment to outline the capability of his country’s ballistic missiles.
The Shahab-3 rocket has a range of 1,250 miles, allowing it to strike an array of Western targets across the Middle East.
“Today the Americans are around our country but this does not mean that they are encircling us. They are encircled themselves and are within our range,” said Gen Mohammed Hassan Koussechi.
“If the United States is saying that they have identified 2,000 targets in Iran, then what is certain is that it is the Americans who are all around Iran and are equally our targets,” he told the official IRNA news agency.
Gen Koussechi added: “We have reached capacities that allow us to hit the enemy at a range of 2,000 kilometres.”
A wide array of possible targets faces Iran across the Gulf. Dubai, filled with Western companies, tourists and expatriates, is only 105 miles away.
Iran’s armed forces already occupy Abu Musa, an island claimed by the United Arab Emirates, 40 miles from Dubai.
Other potential targets include the oilfields in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern province, the headquarters of America’s Central Command in Qatar and the main harbour of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus is also in range.
Tension over Iran’s nuclear programme is now building. Teheran continues to defy three UN resolutions by enriching uranium, which could produce the essential material for a nuclear bomb.
Later this month, America will probably seek the Security Council’s support for a new resolution imposing more sanctions on Iran.
President Nicolas Sarkozy has toughened France’s approach towards Teheran, with Bernard Kouchner, his foreign minister, giving warning at the weekend that the world should “prepare for the worst and the worst is war”.
Teheran responded yesterday by accusing Mr Sarkozy of being an American stooge.
Iran is enriching uranium using centrifuges. It aims to install 3,000 at the underground nuclear plant in Natanz.
Once it has succeeded — and the technical barriers are formidable — Iran would need about one year to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reached a new agreement with Iran designed to lay to rest any fears that Teheran is developing a nuclear bomb.
But Western diplomats say the IAEA agreement contains one flaw — it does not specify that Iran must stop enriching uranium. However, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, said that any talk of war was “hype”. He added: “People need to bear with us.”
• American forces yesterday captured 12 Iraqis who they accuse of smuggling weapons from Iran. The men, who were detained in Baghdad, had prepared and stockpiled an especially lethal variety of roadside bomb, said the US military.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/18/wiran118.xml
On 14 day 44 US soldiers killed in Iraq
On 14 day 44 US soldiers killed in Iraq
The day 14 september the US soldiers killed in Iraq was 10, but nothing is reported by the media. The differences between DOD and Casualties. org.
35 U/I pending notification of next-of-kin 14 September 2007 TF Lightning Killed in Diyala Province, when an explosion occurred near vehicle
36 U/I pending notification of next-of-kin 14 September 2007 TF Lightning Killed in Diyala Province, when an explosion occurred near vehicle
37 U/I pending notification of next-of-kin 14 September 2007 TF Lightning Killed in Diyala Province, when an explosion occurred near vehicle
38 U/I pending notification of next-of-kin 14 September 2007 TF Lightning Killed in Diyala Province, when an explosion occurred near vehicle
39 Staff Sgt. Terry D. Wagoner 28 14 September 2007 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division DoD Release: Died Sept. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an IED detonated near vehicle during combat operations
40 Spc. Todd A. Motley 23 14 September 2007 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division DoD Release: Died Sept. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an IED detonated near vehicle during combat operations
41 Spc. Jonathan Rivadeneira 22 14 September 2007 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division DoD Release: Died Sept. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an IED detonated near vehicle during combat operations
42 Pvt. Christopher M. McCloud 24 14 September 2007 6th Squadron, 9th Cavalry, 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division DoD Release: Died Sept. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an IED detonated near vehicle during combat operations
43 Sgt. John Mele 25 14 September 2007 1st Bn, 30th Infantry, 2nd BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, TF Marne Killed by an IED explosion during a dismounted patrol Sept. 14 / DoD Release: Died Sept. 14 in Arab Jabour, Iraq
44 Cpl. Terrence P. Allen 25 14 September 2007 1st Bn, 2nd Marine, 2nd MARDIV, II MEF DoD Release: Died Sept. 15 from a non-hostile incident in Al Anbar province, Iraq
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_current.htm
16-Sep-2007 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Staff Sergeant Michael L. Townes Balad – Salah ad Din Non-hostile
15-Sep-2007 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Corporal Terrence P. Allen Al Anbar Province Non-hostile
14-Sep-2007 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Sergeant John Mele Baghdad Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Terry D. Wagoner Diyala Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Specialist Todd A. Motley Diyala Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Specialist Jonathan Rivadeneira Diyala Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Private Christopher M. McCloud Diyala Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
13-Sep-2007 – nothing
12-Sep-2007 – nothing
11-Sep-2007 – nothing
10-Sep-2007 10 | US: 10 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Lance Corporal Jon T. Hicks Jr. Al Anbar Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Corporal Carlos E. Gil Orozco Al Anbar Province Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Gregory Rivera-Santiago Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Sergeant Michael C. Hardegree Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Sergeant Nicholas J. Patterson Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Specialist Ari D. Brown-Weeks Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Specialist Steven R. Elrod Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Staff Sergeant Yance T. Gray Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Sergeant Omar L. Mora Baghdad (western part) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover
US Private 1st Class Sammie E. Phillips Baghdad (East of) Non-hostile – vehicle rollover (fire)
09-Sep-2007 2 | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Sergeant Alexander U. Gagalac Hawijah – At-Ta’mim Hostile – hostile fire – RPG attack
US Staff Sergeant Courtney Hollinsworth Baghdad (western part) Hostile – hostile fire – IED, rpg
08-Sep-2007 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Corporal Ryan A. Woodward Baghdad (near) (died in Balad) Hostile – hostile fire – small arms fire
07-Sep-2007 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Specialist Marisol Heredia Brooke Army Med Center, TX – Baghdad Non-hostile – injury
US Lance Corporal Lance M. Clark Al Anbar Province Non-hostile
US Captain Drew N. Jensen Seattle (wounded in Baqubah) – Diyala Hostile – hostile fire – small arms fire
US Specialist Thomas L. Hilbert Mosul – Ninawa Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Specialist Jason J. Hernandez Mosul – Ninawa Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
06-Sep-2007 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Sergeant Lee C. Wilson Mosul – Ninawa Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Corporal Christopher L. Poole Jr. Albu Hyatt – Anbar Hostile – hostile fire – suicide truck bomb
US Corporal Bryan J. Scripsick Albu Hyatt – Anbar Hostile – hostile fire
US Staff Sergeant John C. Stock Albu Hyatt – Anbar Hostile – hostile fire
US Sergeant Michael J. Yarbrough Albu Hyatt – Anbar Hostile – hostile fire
05-Sep-2007 6 | US: 5 | UK: 1 | Other: 0
UK Sergeant Eddie Collins Iraq (details not released) Hostile – hostile fire
US Sergeant 1st Class David A. Cooper Jr. Baghdad Non-hostile – injury
US Corporal William T. Warford III Ad Dujayl – Salah Ad Din Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Private 1st Class Dane R. Balcon Balad – Salah Ad Din Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Corporal Javier G. Paredes Baghdad (eastern part) Hostile – hostile fire – RPG attack
US Specialist Keith A. Nurnberg Baghdad (eastern part) Hostile – hostile fire
04-Sep-2007 4 | US: 4 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Specialist Rodney J. Johnson Baghdad (western part) Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Sergeant Joel L. Murray Baghdad (eastern part) Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Specialist David J. Lane Baghdad (eastern part) Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
US Private Randol S. Shelton Baghdad (eastern part) Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
02-Sep-2007 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Staff Sergeant Delmar White Baghdad (near) Hostile – hostile fire – IED attack
01-Sep-2007 1 | US: 1 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Specialist Christopher G. Patton Baghdad Non-hostile
Total 42 | US: 41 | UK: 1 | Other: 0
http://icasualties.org/oif/prdDetails.aspx?hndRef=9-2007
17 killed across Iraq; attack on Kirkuk-Bayji pipeline
Sep 18, 2007, 11:19 GMT
Baghdad – Seventeen people were reported killed and 38 wounded in separate acts of violence across Iraq on Tuesday, according to local authorities.
Three car bombs exploded successively in central and eastern Baghdad, police said.
The first two bombs were detonated in a parking lot near Baghdad’s health ministry in the central area known as Bab al-Muazzam. The attack was the more intense, killing 11 people and wounding 30.
Initial reports said seven people were killed and 23 wounded, but figures were adjusted later.
The third car bomb exploded minutes later in the eastern Zayouna neighbourhood, killing two people and wounding five.
In another attack in the Zaafaraniyah suburb, southern Baghdad, a blast near a police patrol killed a civilian and wounded two more.
Meanwhile, gunfights between militants and police left three people dead and two wounded in Tikrit, 170 kilometres north of the capital, the local police department said.
A blanket curfew was imposed in the area that was the hometown of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Separately, Iraqi troops and US special operation forces captured a senior member of al-Qaeda in Iraq, two snipers and 15 suspected terrorists during raids in Baghdad’s northern area, the US military said in a statement on Tuesday.
The captured militant was suspected of being the second-in-command to Abu Ghazwan, the head of a terrorist network with suspected links to al-Qaeda that targets citizens and is reportedly also responsible for murder, robberies and kidnappings.
The US military said the network was known to stage attacks from a local mosque, and to provide financing for car bomb attacks.
‘The cell is further suspected of storing and supplying weapons such as surface-to-air missiles, mortar rounds, mortar launchers, and heavy machine guns to be used in future terrorist attacks,’ according to the US statement.
In another development, an explosion along an oil pipeline that extends from the northern Kirkuk oilfields to Bayji refineries caused damage to both the line and another parallel pipeline between Iraq and Turkey.
The ensuing fire affected only a section of the Kirkuk-Bayji pipeline which runs over River Tigris, but caused an oil leak and black fog in the area.
Firefighters struggled to contain the damage, a source in the local oil industry said. The explosion is expected to result in halt to production at Bayji refineries, which reportedly supply more than half of Iraq’s oil products.
According to another source in water department at Salahaddin, the explosion caused oil to seep into the Tigris and causing water stations in the area to be temporarily closed down.
The water supply up to 40 kilometres south of the explosion site was affected, the source added.
In other developments, around 1.2 million children returned to classrooms in the autonomous Kurdish region at the start of the news school year on Tuesday. The event is usually marked by the raising of the regional flag across the cities of northern Iraq.
The region’s Vice President Omar Fatah told reporters this school year was different since the educational system had been overhauled and improved, and promised the new methods would encourage students to pursue their education further ‘assuring that their efforts will not be wasted.’
Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research,
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 bypass the rules of international diplomacy and 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.
The dangers of a broader Middle East war are downplayed or ignored by the main anti-war coalitions. The proposed use of nuclear weapons in a conventional war theater is not a matter for debate.
Moreover, the planned attacks on Iran and their various devastating consequences are not being addressed by “progressive” civil society organizations including the “Left”, which tacitly considers The Islamic Republic as a real threat to human rights. According to Jean Bricmont:
“All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American “left”. The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not according to our views — but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, especially on the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.” (Jean Bricmont, Global Research, September 2007)
Background of War Planning
For the last three years, in several carefully documented articles, Global Research has been reporting in detail on US sponsored war plans directed against Iran. These war plans include the preemptive use of thermonuclear weapons against Iran in retaliation for Tehran’s alleged non-compliance with the demands of the “international community”.
War plans in relation to Iran have been an advanced stage of readiness since mid 2005. Israel, Britain and NATO are part of the US led coalition and are slated to play an active role in the military operation.
The first phase of these war plans was formulated initially in mid-2003, under a Pentagon scenario entitled TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near Term). The military build-up has occurred over a period of more than three years.
In Summer 2006 as well as earlier this year, extensive war games were conducted in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Israeli bombing of Lebanon in July 2006 was an integral part of the broader military agenda. In recent developments, Israel has conducted bombing raids inside Syrian territory visibly in an act of provocation.
Recent official statements by Washington confirm the broad nature of these war plans:
“Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, …
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, …
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would – over two or three days – hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.” (quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 September 2007)
US-NATO naval deployments are taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
In recent developments, it is reported that two aircraft carrier strike groups (USS Nimitz and USS Truman) are en route to the Persian Gulf to join up with the USS Enterprise, which means that there will be, by late September, three carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf.
According to military sources, the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group took up position in late August opposite the Lebanese coastline.
The attacks on Iran are now officially supported by America’s European allies including France and Germany. France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has called upon France to support the US war on Iran:
“We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war,” Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio. Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue “right to the end”, but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose “a real danger for the whole world” .(quoted by BBC, 16 September 2007)
Britain is closely involved, despite denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. NATO is formally involved in liaison with Israel, with which it signed a military framework agreement in November 2004.
While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and Syria) are the main military actors, a number of other countries in the region, allies of the US, including Georgia and Azerbaijan have been enlisted.
There are indications from several media sources that Israel is also at an advanced stage of military preparedness and would be involved in carrying out part of the aerial bombardments. Syria and most probably Lebanon would also be targeted.
Already in 2005, the Israeli Air Force had reached a state of preparedness. Israeli air attacks of Iran’s nuclear facility at Bushehr had been contemplated using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The attack was planned to be carried out in three separate waves “with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area”.
(See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html
Escalation Scenarios
If this military operation were to be launched, the entire Middle East Central Asian region would flare up.
The war would encompass an area extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier.
In this regard, US military planners have analyzed various “escalation scenarios”.
In fact, they expect the war to escalate. In other words, escalation, namely retaliation by Iran is a desired objective. It is part of the military agenda.
“A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq….
Under the theory – which is gaining credence in Washington security circles – US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces. (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)
Iran Retaliates
The nature of Iran’s retaliation should be understood. General David Petraeus, who is responsible for managing the Iraq war theater, has voiced his opposition to an attack on Iran.
“Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.” (Sunday Tewlegraph, op cit)
General Petraeus is fully aware of the underlying implications for the Iraq war theater. A war on Iran would immediately spill over into Iraq:
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.
Iran tested three new types of land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles in the context of its “Great Prophet II” military exercises last November. These tests were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert, “the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess.”
Tehran has the ability to retaliate and wage ballistic missile attacks against US and coalition facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf states. Israel would also be a potential target, if Israel were to be an active partner in the bombing campaign.
Iranian ground troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran’s forces total about 350,000 active military personnel as well 350,000 million reservists.(Jane’s Iran Profile) The Iranian Army disposes of some 2200 tanks. With these capabilities in terms of military personnel and hardware Iran could potentially inflict significant losses to US and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush-Cheney Military Appointments
Several key military appointments were made in recent months which tend to reinforce Bush-Cheney control over the Military. Specifically, these appointments pertain to the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders respectively of USCENTCOM, USSTRATCOM and US Pacific Command. All three commanders recently relinquished their respective positions.
These new appointments are crucial because USSTRATCOM, USCENTCOM US Pacific Command are slated to play key roles in the coordination and implementation of the Iran military operation, in liaison with Israel and NATO.
1. Joint Chiefs of Staff
In May, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Peter Pace was fired (non-renewal). General Pace in recent months, had indicated his disagreement with the Administration regarding both Iraq and the proposed attacks on Iran. General Pace stated (February 2007) that he saw no firm evidence of Tehran supplying weapons to Shiite militias inside Iraq, which was being heralded by the Bush administration as a justification for waging war on Iran:
“Maybe that’s why he’s the outgoing chairman. Maybe that’s why they’re not renewing him. Because …He has seen no evidence that Iran is fomenting unrest in Iraq that’s causing Americans lives… ” (Fox News’ Alan Colmes, ox News, June, 13, 2007),
General Peter Pace’s term as Chairman of the JCS ends at the end of September. Defense Secretary Gates’ chosen successor Admiral Michael Mullen, formerly U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, is slated to replace General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff.
Mullen’s discourse is in marked contrast to that of General Peter Pace. Mullen, who was in charge of coordinating 2006-2007 naval war games off the Iranian coastline, has expressed an unbending commitment to “waging” and “winning asymmetric wars”, while also “protecting the United States”:
“we must ensure we have the Battle Force, the people, and the combat readiness we need to win our nation’s wars…
Our Navy is fighting the Global War on Terror while at the same time providing a Strategic Reserve worldwide for the President and our Unified and Combatant Commanders…. Simply reacting to change is no longer an acceptable course of action if our Navy is to successfully wage asymmetric warfare and simultaneously deter regional and transnational threats (Statement, Senate Armed Services Committee, 7 May 2007)
Admiral Mullen’s stance is in line with that of the Bush Administration’s key Neo-conservative ideologues. With regard to Iran, echoing almost verbatim the stance of the White House, Admiral Mullen considers that it is “unacceptable that Iran is providing U.S. enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan with capabilities that are hurting and killing U.S. troops.” (Inside the Pentagon, June 21, 2007). But on the issue of Iran, the Democrats are on board. There is a bipartisan consensus, expressed by Senator Jo Lieberman:
“I want to make clear I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran,… but a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers” (AP, June 11, 2007)
In June, Secretary of Defense Gates appoints the Commander of USSTRATCOM, General Cartwright to the position of Vice-Chairman of the JCS. Together with the appointment of Admiral Mullen, who is slated to take on his position of Chairman of JCS in October, these two new appointments imply a significant overhaul in the power structure of the JCS
In the meantime, USSTRATCOM is headed, pending Senate confirmation of a new commander, on an interim basis, by Air Force Lt. Gen. C. Robert Kehler
2. CENTCOM
Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in March by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
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 USCENTCOM’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.
3. Pacific Command
Another major military appointment was implemented, which has a direct bearing on war preparations in relation to Iran. Admiral Timothy J. Keating Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed in March, 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.
It should be understood that these new military appointments tend to consolidate the power of Bush-Cheney in the military, overriding potential dissent or opposition to the Iran war agenda from within the upper echelons of the US military.
It is, however, unlikely that a major military operation would be launched immediately following Mullen’s instatement as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and prior to the confirmation of a new USSTRATCOM Commander by the US Senate.
USSTRATCOM’s Central Role in Coordinating the Attacks
USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating this military deployment as well as launching the military operation directed against Iran. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Jan 2006 ).
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, For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, op. cit.).
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.)
USSTRATCOM 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. .
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:”
If Iran Retaliates, the US Could Use Nuclear Weapons
US, NATO and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial “punitive bombings” could lead coalition forces into a ground war scenario in which they may have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces in the battlefield.
Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and all out war.
Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter into Syria.
If Iran were to retaliate in a forceful way, which is contemplated by US military planners, the US could then retaliate with tactical nuclear weapons.
This scenario of using nuclear weapons against Iran has been in the pipeline since 2004. In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney 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).
In relation to current war plans, Cheney has confirmed his intention to strike Iran with nuclear weapons.
“The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.” (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization
In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media nor even in Congressional debates. 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.
Tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran have also been deployed at military bases in several NATO non-nuclear states including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey.
It should be understood that even without the use of nukes, the proposed US aerial bombardments could result in a nuclear Chernobyl type disaster..
World War III Scenario
While the war on Iran is acknowledged by the Western media, it is not front page news.
The broad implications of an impending catastrophe are simply not addressed.
Escalation could lead us into a World War III scenario.
Through media disinformation, the seriousness of a US-led war on Iran allegedly in retaliation for Iran’s defiance of the “international community” is downplayed . The objective is to galvanize Western public opinion in support of a US-led military operation, which would inevitably lead to escalation.
War propaganda consists in “fabricating an enemy” while conveying the illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists, who are directly supported by the Tehran government.
“Make the World safer”, “prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear devices by terrorists”, “implement punitive actions against Iran to ensure the peace”. “Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states”…
Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda. The latter is upheld as a “Just War”. The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to the invaders.
What can be done?
The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the nature of the US military agenda. In the US, United for Peace and Justice tacitly supports US foreign policy. It fails to recognize the existence of an Iraqi resistance movement. Moreover, these same antiwar organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran. More generally the antiwar movement fails to address the existence of a broader Middle East military agenda, a long-war. Is actions are piecemeal, focusing on Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine without addressing the relationship between these various war theaters.
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 quite explicitly the use of thermonuclear weapons. The message should be loud and clear: As confirmed by the IAEA report, Iran is not the threat.
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.
For the past two years, Washington has been waging a “diplomatic arm twisting” exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level, countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a firm stance against the US military agenda.
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.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070916&articleId=6792
Au bord du gouffre
Nous sommes à un tournant géopolitique majeur. Très récemment, certains médias mainstream laissaient échapper quelques voix et sujets discordants par rapport au consensus médiatique sur les attentats du 11 septembre.
La première télévision autrichienne diffusait 9/11 Mysteries. Robert Fisk, un des plus grands journalistes anglo-saxons, mettait sérieusement en doute la théorie du complot officielle dans les colonnes de The Independent, titre phare de la presse anglaise comme peut l’etre le journal Le Monde en France…
Le 13 septembre 2007, il s’agit d’un article de RIA Novosti, agence russe d’information internationale qui met un pavé dans la mare.
L’article publié évoque le fait que les tours jumelles se sont effondrées suite à une explosion : experts à l’appui. On y apprend notamment que le professeur Steven Jones a découvert des traces de thermite, matière utilisée dans l’armée, dans le métal figé et dans les prélèvements de poussière réalisés sur le lieu de l’effondrement des tours. Les experts du département américain de déminage ont noté une oxydation et une fusion inter-granulaire extrêmement rapide du métal.
Outre le fait qu’un média de masse aborde aussi ouvertement ce genre d’information, cet évènement a une signification toute particulière : Il faut savoir que RIA Novosti est une agence d’information et d’analyse d’État. Elle est officiellement sous la tutelle du ministère de la presse et de l’information de Russie depuis le 22 août 1991. On peut présumer que la publication de ce type d’information sensible a été rendu possible par l’État russe par incitation ou simple complaisance. Mais pourquoi maintenant ? Poutine essaye de contrecarrer les plans États-Uniens en laissant certaines informations en évidence. Car le temps n’est plus à la demi-mesure. La démission du gouvernement, le 12 septembre, offre un nouvelle espace de manoeuvre à Vladimir Poutine, qui pourrait bien s’avérer utile dans les semaines à venir.
Explications:
Une économie au bord du gouffre…
Sur abcnews, David Walker, patron de l’équivalent de la cour des comptes des USA, affirmait que les comptes de la nation sont désastreux et que le pays est aux bords du désastre économique. La majorité des économistes et analystes financiers s’accordent sur le fait que le bateau amérique est au bord du naufrage. Il s’agit d’une véritable course contre la montre pour sauver l’économie américaine. Face à la croissance très intense des BRIC (Brésil, Russie, Inde et Chine) ainsi que du Pakistan et des pays d’Afrique qui jouent d’ores et déjà un rôle important dans l’économie globalisée, Les indicatifs économiques américains sont au rouge et les perspectives sont pessimistes. La carte économique du monde est en train de se modifier durablement. Le président de la société de gestion Troika-Dialogue, Pavel Teploukhine, estime que le rôle des pays émergents dans l’économie mondiale consiste sans doute dans un avenir prévisible à “remplacer l’Amérique sur le plan de la consommation mondiale“. Selon lui, la situation économique peut changer de façon radicale et très vite.
Le fait que les Etats-Unis vivent à crédit sur le reste du monde est un fait connu de tous. L’endettement américain est intenable sur le long terme. On estime que les Etats-Unis drainent vers leur économie 70 % de l’épargne mondiale ! La Chine est devenue le principal bailleur des Etats-Unis. Les officiels chinois d’ailleurs se targent de pouvoir exercer à tout moment un pouvoir de chantage. L’Amérique ne contrôle plus sa souveraineté économique. Il devient hasardeux d’acheter des bons du Trésor US.
La puissance du dollars repose essentiellement sur les transactions pétrolières libéllées en son nom. Les acheteurs étaient obligés jusqu’alors de négocier avec cette monnaie, mais la donne change. Les pays producteurs, à l’instar de l’Iran et du Vénezuela, utilisent de plus en plus d’autres monnaies dans leur transactions. En juillet dernier, l’Iran et le Japon ont rédéfinis leur accords pétroliers afin de remplacer le dollar par le yen. Le dollar n’en finit pas de tomber face à un euro qui atteint des records, tandis que le court du brut (le dollar est une monnaie basée sur le pétrole) est à son plus haut niveau jamais atteint, dépassant la barre des 80 dollars. L’accès direct au pétrole irakien libellée en dollars et non plus en euros comme l’avait décidé S.Hussein ne sera vraiment acquis que lorsque le pays sera stabilisé.
En parallèle, comme l’a énoncé Malakine, “la crise des subprimes porte sur le coeur du système financier global, à savoir la surconsommation américaine et son financement par le reste du monde. La solvabilité des consommateurs américains est remise en cause et rappelle fâcheusement la solvabilité critique de l’Etat américain lui-même“.
Les marchés mondiaux réagissent avec défiance. Il s’ensuit une crise de confiance envers la première puissance mondiale. Une défiance au final à la fois financière, militaire et diplomatique. Un ensemble de données qui pourrait provoquer une réaction en chaine.
La Chine de son côté, affirme sans ombrage sa puissance financière et la FED perd le contrôle de ses taux d’intérêts, ne jouant plus son rôle de régulateur comme les banques centrales. Dépendante des flux financiers extérieurs, les Etats-Unis ont perdu leur souveraineté et confirme le déclin du dollar et la fin de la toute-puissance américaine.
Quel recours pour l’Amérique ? l’Iran et le Nucléaire
La guerre en préparation contre l’Iran n’a rien à voir avec le programme nucléaire iranien ou la lutte contre le terrorisme. Le gouvernement US cherche à controler la manne pétrolière iranienne en s’assurant que le dollars restera la monnaie d’échange.
Les grandes manoeuvres sont lancées. L’Amerique a trouvé un allié de choix en la France de Sarkosy qui ne cache plus son admiration pour le modèle américain (breifing journalier à l’Elysée sur le modèle de la maison blanche. réorganisation des RG et de la DST pour en faire un FBI à la française, réintégration progressive de la France dans l’OTAN, les exemples ne manquent pas…) La recente visite de Bernard Kouchner en Irak est là pour montrer à l’Amérique et au reste du monde, que la France souhaite s’aligner sur les stratégies US : “Nous sommes là” quitte à profiter de la situation après coup.
Sur l’Iran, Nicolas Sarkozy adopte par ses déclarations une ligne comparable à celle défendue par l’administration Bush depuis le déclenchement de la guerre en Irak en 2003. Le Président Français souhaite accroitre considérablement les sanctions envers l’Iran quitte à se passer comme les Etats-Unis l’envisage, du conseil de sécurité de l’ONU comme avant la guerre contre l’Irak pour contourner le blocage de la Chine et de la Russie. La France se retrouve juste de l’autre bord aujourd’hui…Le but avoué est de séduire les autres pays européens et de réussir à former un noyau, une coalition de pays susceptibles de prendre part aux manoeuvres.
L’emballement rhétorique de tout bord est monté d’un cran ces derniers temps où l’on parle de manière à peine voilée de bombardement ou d’attaques nucléaires. Le président américain déclarait recemment que le Moyen-Orient serait menacé d’un “”holocauste nucléaire”” si l’Iran se dote de la bombe atomique. Sarkosy déclare à propos des sanctions accrues souhaitées : “Cette démarche est la seule qui puisse nous permettre d’échapper à une alternative catastrophique : la bombe iranienne ou le bombardement de l’Iran“
Bernard Koushner y va de son couplet. “Il faut se préparer au pire“, a déclaré Bernard Kouchner, au sujet de l’Iran, dimanche. Interrogé au Grand Jury RTL/Le Figaro/LCI pour savoir ce que cela signifiait, le chef de la diplomatie a répondu: “c’est la guerre” – ou comment préparer les esprits…
D’autre part, selon Fox News, “la décision récente des officiels allemands de ne pas apporter leur soutien pour de nouvelles sanctions contre l’Iran a conduit une large partie de l’administration à Washington à développer des scénarios pour une attaque contre le régime islamique“.
Thomas McInerney, un général US à la retraite déclare que “depuis que l’Allemagne a retiré son soutien aux sanctions économiques, nous n’avons plus d’autre choix…Il nous ont contraint à l’option militaire.” C’est d’ailleurs ce qui semble se confirmer.
Pendant ce temps, M. El Baradei chef de l’AEIA chargé du dossier nucléaire iranien déclare que des “pas en avant significatif et de bonne volonté” de la part de l’Iran sont enregistrés. Celui-ci bien que victime, selon certains diplomates et Fox News, d’attaques plus insidieuses ces dernières semaines (appels téléphoniques nocturnes de menace effectués au domicile, emails adressés aux membres du bureau de l’Agence, qui accusent de méfaits El Baradei ainsi que d’autres hauts responsables de l’institution) dénonce les “fous” qui veulent bombarder l’Iran. Il s’en est pris violemment, sans les nommer directement, aux néoconservateurs américains qui veulent déclencher une nouvelle guerre contre l’Iran.
Attaque nucléaire sur l’Iran
Cette option n’a rien d’ubuesque. Le fait est que l’Iran est bien plus complexe à attaquer que l’Irak et que le gros des troupes sont toujours enlisés en Irak, cette perspective est depuis longtemps envisagée et préparée.
Déjà en 2005, le bureau du vice-président Cheney se chargeait de planifier un scénario de risposte nucléaire contre l’Iran à la suite d’attentats majeurs contre les États-Unis, de type 11 septembre, révèle The American Conservative (hebdomadaire de Patrick Buchanan) dans son édition du 1er août 2005.
La conception de cette guerre nucléaire a été confiée au général Ralph E. Eberhart. Ce dernier s’était illustré le 11 septembre 2001 en échouant à intercepter les “avions détournés” et en avait été récompensé en étant promu commandant en chef du Commandement du Nord (NorthCom). Nous voilà donc prévenus : des attentats de grande envergure sont possibles aux États-Unis et, avant même qu’ils aient eu lieu, on en connaît les coupables. Ce seront les Iraniens. Le Pentagone pourra bombarder ses populations et confisquer ses puits de pétrole.
Le document officiel « ”Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” », Doctrine des opérations nucléaires interarmes, de mars 2005, prévoit que les Etats-Unis pourront dorénavant avoir recours à des frappes nucléaires préventives. Le Sénat américain a affecté recemment 125 millions de dollars au programme “”Prompt Global Strike”” qui devrait permettre aux Etats-Unis de frapper n’importe quel point du globe en l’espace d’une heure.
Robert Baer, un ancien agent moyen-orient de la CIA a déclaré que les Etats-Unis étaient prêt à bombarder l’Iran au cours des 6 prochains mois à compter de maintenant. Des propos rejoints par ceux de Ken Silverstein lui-même ancien agent de la maison. Selon un expert de la sécurité nationale, un plan d’attaques aériennes massives contre 1200 cibles iraniennes a été finalisé par le Pentagone. Celui-ci inclue la possibilité d’utiliser des mini-nukes. Le plan se basera sur une stratégie de guerre éclaire de 3 jours.
Dans le New Yorker le journaliste Seymour Hersh, vétéran du journalisme d’investigation aux Etats-Unis, qui cite principalement des responsables anciens et actuels non identifiés, écrit que le président George Bush considère son homologue iranien, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comme un “Adolf Hitler potentiel” et que pour lui, un “changement de régime en Iran” est l’objectif final.
“La Maison blanche croit que le seul moyen de régler le problème est de changer la structure du pouvoir en Iran, et cela signifie la guerre“, a déclaré Hersh.
L’article de Hersh affirme que le gouvernement américain a intensifié ses activités clandestines en Iran et a lancé une série de discussions concernant ses plans avec “quelques éminents sénateurs et membres du Congrès“.
Un ancien haut responsable de la Défense a, toujours selon le journaliste, déclaré que les militaires croyaient que des bombardements soutenus contre l’Iran humilieraient les dirigeants de ce pays et inciteraient la population à les renverser. Ce haut responsable s’est déclaré choqué par semblable stratégie. L’article rapporte aussi que les militaires américains envisagent sérieusement d’utiliser une arme nucléaire tactique “perceuse de bunker” pour détruire la principale usine iranienne de centrifugeuses, à Natanz. Selon le conseiller du Pentagone cité par Hersh, des officiers supérieurs et de hauts responsables envisagent de démissionner en raison de ce projet.
Enfin, l’administration américaine subit des pressions de la part d’Israël qui a averti l’administration Bush que l’Iran serait plus proche de se doter de l’arme nucléaire que le pense Washington et que le moment de prendre une décision sur une attaque approche rapidement.
Entre temps beaucoup d’experts estiment que le récent survol de la Syrie et l’attaque aérienne par Israel était un entrainement pour une attaque sur l’iran. Ankara demande des explications sur l’incursion aérienne qui a pu retrouvé des reservoirs de carburant d’avions de chasse près de sa frontière avec la Syrie.
False Flag sur le sol US
Paul Craig Roberts, L’ancien secrétaire d’état au Trésor de Reagan redoute une dérive autoritaire de l’administration Bush qui planifierait une opération contre l’Iran. Avec l’échéance des élections se rapprochant, Roberts pense que Bush et Cheney vont se lancer dans une fuite en avant pour tenter de provoquer un réflexe patriotique qui rassemblerait autour d’eux l’opinion américaine.
Il a expliqué que George W. Bush avait élaboré les bases juridiques permettant d’instaurer l’état d’urgence et que d’ici un an, les Etats-Unis pourraient devenir un Etat policier dictatorial, en guerre contre l’Iran. Il rejoint sur ce point Ron Paul, candidat républicain à la présidence, le député reprend à son tour l’hypothèse de l’instauration d’une loi martiale, mais cette fois, ce n’est plus pour maintenir les républicains au pouvoir, c’est pour prévenir les désordres qu’engendreraient “une baisse économique et une ruée sur les banques“
Il a déclaré que dans une telle situation, les militaires américains pourraient constituer l’unique force d’opposition. Il a mis en garde contre l’administration Bush qui selon lui prépare quelque chose, afin d’effrayer le pays et réunir la population autour des républicains, qui dans le cas contraire pourraient perdre totalement le pouvoir lors des élections l’année prochaine. “Des membres de l’administration Bush et d’éminents propagandistes républicains préparent un nouvel événement dans la lignée du 11 septembre 2001 ou bien une série d’événements de ce type“, a-t-il averti.
En ça il rejoint directement les propos Zbigniew Brzezinski. Il a été auditionné le 1er février 2007 par la Commission des Affaires étrangères du Sénat, l’ancien conseiller national de sécurité a lu une déclaration dont il avait soigneusement pesé les termes. Il a indiqué : “Un scénario possible pour un affrontement militaire avec l’Iran implique que l’échec irakien atteigne les limites américaines ; suivi par des accusations américaines rendant l’Iran responsable de cet échec ; puis, par quelques provocations en Irak ou un acte terroriste sur le sol américain dont l’Iran serait rendu responsable. Ceci pourrait culminer avec une action militaire américaine “défensive” contre l’Iran qui plongerait une Amérique isolée dans un profond bourbier englobant l’Iran, l’Irak, l’Afghanistan et le Pakistan“
CF vidéo dans video pod eldib
Chertoff, le secrétaire à la sécurité nationale, déclarait récemment que les Etats-Unis se préparait à une attaque terroriste nucléaire.
Le directeur de la CIA sous l’impulsion du CFR à adresser un message public (fait rare) en tenue militaire, avertissant “”qu’Al-Qaida planifiait une attque de très grande envergure sur le territoire US”“. Pendant ce temps, on nous fait bien comprendre que la surveillance des terroristes potentiels aux Etats-Unis demeure lacunaire et que donc tout peut arriver.
Un groupe d’anciens responsables du gouvernement avec des candidats au Congrès, des auteurs et des activistes ont publié une alerte urgente selon laquelle une faction du gouvernement alliée à Dick Cheney projette de mettre en scène un événement ou une provocation terroriste en prétexte d’un lancement d’attaques militaires contre l’Iran et à la mise en application de pouvoirs d’urgence aux USA. L’ancienne député Cynthia McKinney, avec l’ancien diplomate et colonel de réserve de l’armée Ann Wright ont apposé leur signature sur une lettre publique avertissant que d’énormes indications braquent un événement prochain. Les actuels candidats députés Cindy Sheehan et Craig Hill sont aussi parmi les signataires à la lettre.
On y retrouve également l’information sur un mystérieux spéculateur qui “a risqué des milliards de dollars” en spéculant sur le fait que le marché s’effondrera par un tiers avant le 21 septembre.
On y lit également que “L’assemblée du conseil supérieur de la Réserve Fédérale aura lieu le 31 août au “COG” de Jackson Hole dans le Wyoming. COG veut dire “Continuité du Gouvernement“. C’est une installation militaire souterraine de super-haute-sécurité, conçue comme un sanctuaire pour le gouvernement dans le cas où les USA seraient frappés par des armes nucléaires ou subiraient un autre désastre catastrophique. Pourquoi le conseil supérieur de la Banque Fédérale déciderait-il de se réunir dans un pareil endroit s’ils savaient pas qu’un truc énorme allait arriver aux États-Unis le mois prochain ? Cette information sur les histoires ci-dessous est pour nous le signe indubitable que quelque chose de terrible va arriver et les grands manitous le savent déjà. …. “
L’episode de l”erreur nucléaire” liée aux B-52 qui ont survolés le sol Etats-Uniens avec des bombes nucléaires sur leur ailes, nous laisse stoïque. En effet dans le cas d’un demantèlement ou d’un transport d’ogives, celles-ci en vertu des règles de sécurité nucléaires sont disposés en soute. Comment ces ogives ont pu atterir là alors qu’il faut les codes d’authentification présidentiels pour les enlever de leur coffrets d’entreposage ? La base Barksdale sur laquelle se sont posés les B-52 est le point de départ de toute opération destinée au Moyen-Orient, selon une source de l’armée.
Entre temps pour palier à cette “erreur“, l’ordre est donné à tous les avions de chasse et tous les avions bombardiers de la force aérienne qui sont basés aux USA de “rester au sol”, y compris les avions de Langley. Le 14 septembre, le continent des Etats-Unis était zéro défense ce jour là. Seulement les Bombardiers transportent des têtes nucléaires. Alors pourquoi des pilotes de chasse ont aussi reçu l’ordre de rester au sol ?
Leur dernier atout…
Utiliser le dernier atout qu’il possède dans leur jeu : la puissance militaire, mais cette fois, sans rechercher une quelconque légitimité internationale. Juste prouver à la face du monde que les plus forts restent les Etats-Unis et sur-compenser le krach économique qui s’annonce.
Nous sommes prévenus.
sources:
- abcnews
- washingtonnote
- lci
- ria novosti (1,2,3,4,5)
- le figaro (1,2)
- le monde (1,3,4)
- legrandsoir.info (1,2,3)
- betapolitique.fr
- globalsearch.ca (1,2,3)
- horizons (1,2,3)
- alterinfo.net (1,2)
- contreinfo.info (1,2,3,4)
- dedefensa.org
- nouvelobs
- leap2020 (1,2)
- afp, reuters, divers…
Lundi 17 Septembre 2007
