le 01062015 C E

Hi all

Media from around the world, us lie, CNN, FOX NEWS, SKY NEWS and others, I knew that they, we were lying, may, they affect the Pompom gentlemen ladies, of all people, of course, but especially on the Anglo – Saxon chains, people in England , believe not your media, because I have the chance to understand a bit what said you , but this is a ramassie of crap, said SKY NEWS! was the same with us,is BFM , they have always been pass Bashar Al-assad for the evil dictator, it is either saying the dictator, without pity, which is crazy, is that its population, does not have the air to complain, there is that people from QATAR, which complaints and who do is bother not for launched against him , armed groups as Al Nostra by example, or EI, among others, ca me recall a coup « , is saying nasty COLONEL Muammar KADAFI, who had a P-T-N of good program for Africa, which was very very stupid far from certainly what SARKOZY is used to silence, in short, believing that these media go is faires triplet (Saddam Hussein (, Gaddafi Bashar) I can see from here, finally, I can me wrong., they are badly fallen

This is to show you American people(and especially veterans and military you, who believed in your nation, but that it believes more money,), that confidence, that you give to your policies, do not weigh heavy counterparts, to fortunes, that they were going to be on your death and on your back (insurance lives, what is!), foreseeing this war in 2010 for veterans, their poor ripped members, or others, that is, what is now unfortunately, America a country, which has more of what shelter these people, feed, can be ten years, even, who entretue between bikers, cops, and the black people who will feel oppressed, hence, the emergence of APARTHEID in, some places, like (Ferguson) South Africa , thank you, Mr DAVID ROCKEFFELER, and Mr DAVID ROTHSCHILD, and let’s not forget the Queen ELISABETH II, thank, you three have fucking, this shit, and the other crevure, the friend of Hitler and, then, there was, black and, Katrina tides.
Objetivo Iran


Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for research on globalization (CRM), Montréal. He is the author of the globalization of poverty and the new order world (2003) and the war America of terrorism (2005) It also contributes to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have appeared in more than twenty languages.

Part I

Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads.

Preparations for war attacking the Iran are in « a State advanced preparation. Systems of high technology, including nuclear weapons, are fully deployed.

This military adventure is on the drawing board of the Pentagon since the mid-1990s. First of the Iraq, then Iran according to documents declassified 1995 US Central command

Climbing is part of the military agenda. While they the Iran is the next target as well as the Syria and Lebanon, this military strategic deployment also threatens North Korea, China and the Russia.

Since 2005, the United States and its allies, including the United States, NATO and Israel partners, participated in wide deployment and storage of the advanced weapons systems.

Systems of air defense of the United States, Israel and the NATO member countries are fully integrated.

It is a task coordinated the Pentagon, NATO, Israel defense Force (IDF), with the active participation of the army in several NATO countries and non-members, including

· the front-line Arab States (members of the Mediterranean dialogue and NATO’s Istanbul cooperation Initiative)

· Saudi Arabia

· Japan

· South Korea

· India

· Indonesia

· Singapore

· Australia

.. other .between.

(NATO consists of 28 Member States. Other 21 countries are members of the of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC); the Mediterranean dialogue and the Istanbul cooperation initiative has ten Arab countries and Israel.)

The role of Egypt, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia (within the enlarged military alliance) is particularly relevant. The Egypt controls the movement of ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are the West coast of the South of the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman.

At the beginning of June,.

« reported from Egypt, allowing eleven ships of the USA and Israel to pass through the Suez Canal, in a clear signal… in Iran… On 12 June, the regional press has reported that the Saudis had authorized Israel to fly over its airspace… »

(Weissbach Muriel Mirak, s Israel senseless war against the Iran, should prevent, Global Research, July 31, 2010)

In the post-9/11 military doctrine, the massive military deployment has been defined RFA « Global terrorism war », pointing to terrorist organizations « non-State » of Al Qaeda and the so-called ‘States sponsors of terrorism’, including the Sudan, the Syria, the Lebanon and the Iran.

Bases of the creation of a new army, advanced weapons, including tactical nuclear weapons storage systems, etc. were carried out as part of prevention « defensive military doctrine » under the aegis of the « global war on terror « .
War and economic crisis

The consequences of an attack by the United States and Israel against the Iran wider NATO are not negligible.

The war and the economic crisis are intertwined. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which takes its source in the creditor of the US Administration

US weapons producers are the recipients of billions of dollars from the U.S. Department of defense to supply the markets of the advanced weapons systems.

At the same time, « the battle for oil » in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants. The United States and its allies are « beating war drums » at the height of a world economic depression, not to mention the worst ecological disaster in world history.

A bitter irony, one of the major players (BP) on the geopolitical chessboard of Central Asia to the Middle East, formerly the Anglo – Persian Oil, was the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of the Mexico.
Media disinformation

Public opinion, influenced by media hype, offer support, tacit, indifferent or unaware of the potential impacts of what remains an ad hoc « punitive » operation directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than an all-out war.

Preparations for war include the deployment of nuclear weapons in Israel and United States manufacturers.

In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war is trivializing or are simply not mentioned.

The ‘real’ crisis that threatens humanity is « global warming », according to Government and media and not the war.

The war against the Iran is presented to public opinion as one problem among others. Not offered as a threat to the « mother earth », as in the case of global warming. It is not one of the newspapers.

The fact that an attack on the Iran could lead to a potential escalation and trigger a « world war » is not cause for concern.
Cult of death and destruction

The killing machine overall is also owned by the cult of death and destruction prevailing in Hollywood films, not to mention the wars in prime time and crime TV series.

This cult to kill is supported by the CIA and the Pentagon, which has also supported (funded) as an instrument of propaganda war Hollywood productions:

«The clatter of the CIA, Bob Baer, said: « There is a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood » and revealed that the former Director of the CIA, George Tenet, is currently in Hollywood, talk with studies. « .

(Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, lights, camera…) Covert Action: The deep politics of Hollywood, Global Research, January 31, 2009).

The killing machine is deployed globally in the context of unified battle command structure.

And regularly maintained by government institutions, the media and the mandarins and the orders of the new order world and intellectuals from the institutes of reflection and search for Washington’s strategic studies, as an indisputable instrument of peace and global prosperity.

The culture of death and violence has occurred in human consciousness.

The war is widely accepted as part of a social process:

the country must be « defended » and protected.

« Legitimate » violence and extrajudicial executions against the « terrorists » are kept in the Western democracies, as the instruments of national security.

A ‘humanitarian war’ was held by the so-called international community. It is not condemned as a criminal act. The main architects are rewarded for their contribution to world peace.

With regard to the Iran, which develops is the direct legitimacy of the war on behalf of an illusory idea of global security.
An attack air « preventive » on the Iran would lead to an escalation

Currently, there are three theatres of war separately in the Middle East Central Asia:

· Iraq

· Afghanistan-Pakistan

· Palestine

If the Iran have been the subject of a ‘system’ bombardment by Allied forces, throughout the region of the Eastern Mediterranean to the western border of China with the Afghanistan and Pakistan could explode, leading potentially to a third world war scenario.

The war would also extend to the Lebanon and the Syria. It is very likely that the attacks, if implemented, could be restricted within nuclear facilities of Iran as official statements by the United States and NATO.

Most likely an air strike two military infrastructure such as civilians, transport systems, factories and public buildings.

Iran, with an estimated ten percent of the world’s oil, is third world gas reserves, after Saudi Arabia (25%) and Iraq (11%) in the size of its reserves.

In comparison, the United States has less than 2.8% of the world’s oil supply. (See Eric Waddell, the battle for oil, Global Research, December 2004).

It is important that the recently discovered in Iran, Sumar and Hahn, of the second largest known reserves, which are estimated at 12.4 billion cubic feet.

Targeting the Iran not only consists of recovering the British control over the oil and gas economy, including pipeline routes, but they also question the presence and the influence of China and Russia in the region.

The attack planned against the Iran is part of a coordinated global map of military conduct.

Part of the ‘long war of the Pentagon, »is a win-win war without borders, a project of world domination, a series of military operations.

United States and NATO military planners have provided various scenarios of military escalation. They are also very well the geopolitical implications, namely, that the war could spread beyond the region of the Middle East to Central Asia.

The economic effects on the oil markets, etc. were also analyzed. While the Iran, the Syria and the Lebanon are the immediate objectives, China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba, not to mention, they are also subject to the threats of the United States

The structure of military alliances is at stake. The military deployments of Israel-USA-NATO, including exercises and military manoeuvres carried out in Russia, and its immediate borders of China have a direct relationship with the war against the Iran proposal.

These veiled threats, including your calendar, are a clear warning to the former powers of the era of the cold war, so that they can interfere in an attack launched by the United States against the Iran.
Second World War

Strategic medium-term aims to reach the Iran and neutralize their allies through the diplomacy of the canon. Long-term military goal is to go directly to China and the Russia.

Although the Iran is the immediate goal, the military deployment is not limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. A global military agenda has been formulated.

The deployment of coalition troops and weapons systems advanced from the United States, NATO and its partners occurs simultaneously in all major regions of the world.

The recent actions of the United States military to off the coast of Korea from the North in the form of manoeuvres, are part of an overall design.

The military exercises, simulated war, the deployment of weapons, etc… in the United States, NATO and its allies being held simultaneously in the main points of geopolitical, are focused on the Russia and China.

· The peninsula of Korea, the Japan Sea, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the China threat

· The deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, the center of early warning in Czech Republic, threatens the Russia

· Naval deployments in Bulgaria, Romania, on the Black Sea, threatening of Russia

· Deployments of troops from NATO and the USA in Georgia

· A formidable naval deployment in the Persian Gulf, including directed Israeli submarines against the Iran.

In the same time, the Eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caribbean, Central America and the Andean region of South America, are areas of ongoing militarization.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the threats are directed against Venezuela and Cuba.
« Military aid » of the United States

At the same time, large-scale arms transfers were held under the banner of the United States ‘military’ to support selected countries, including $5 billion in an arms contract with India, which aims to improve the capacity of the India against China. ( United States-India huge arms Deal to contain China ( , Global Times, July 13, 2010).

«[The sale of arms] will mean improving relations between Washington and New Delhi and, voluntarily or not, will effectively contain China’s influence in the region.»

(Cited in Rick Rozoff, to deal with China and the Russia: US risks military Clash with China in Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010).

The United States have concluded agreements of military cooperation with countries in South Asia is, Singapore, Viet Nam and Indonesia, including its « military aid », as well as participation in military exercises conducted by the United States in the Pacific Basin (July-August 2010).

These agreements are the support for deployments of weapons directed against the People’s Republic of China. (See Rick Rozoff, to deal with China and the Russia: US risks military Clash with China in Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010).

Of same and more directly linked to the attack planned against Iran, U.S. is arming the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates) with the interceptor missile surface-to-air Patriot Advanced capability-3 and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), as well as those based on interceptors standard missile Sea-3 installed on board ships of class Aegis in the Gulf war.

(See Rick Rozoff, NATO completo role in the military of Iran encirclement, February 10, 2010).
Storage and military implementation program

What is essential in what concerning arms transfers us to partner countries and allies, real-time delivery and deployment.

The launch of a U.S. military operation sponsored normally happen once these weapons systems are in place, after the effective deployment of the application of the training of the personnel. (For example, the India).

We are talking about here is a military world carefully coordinated design controlled by the Pentagon, with the participation of the combined armed forces more from forty countries. This global multinational military deployment is, by far, the largest deployment of weapon systems advanced history.

At the same time, the United States and its allies have established new military bases in different parts of the world.

« The surface of the Earth is structured like a huge battlefield.

(See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide network of US Military Bases, Global research, July 1, 2007).

The unified command of the geographical structure divided into combat command based on a strategy of militarization globally.

« The U.S. Army has bases in 63 countries. Brands of new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. « In total, there are 255.065 military deployed U.S. everywhere in the world.  » « .

(See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide network of US Military Bases, Global research, July 2007 01.)

Map the world with the Commander of the ‘area of responsibility
Source: DefenseLINK unified command Plan

The third world war scenario

This military deployment takes place in various regions at the same time under the coordination of the U.S. regional commands, with the participation in the storage of the United States of stocks by the allies of the United States, some of which are old enemies, including the Viet Nam and the Japan.

The current context is characterised by a global military buildup controlled a superpower which is using its allies to trigger many regional wars.

The difference with the second world war, who was also a combination of different parts of a regional war, it is the technology of communications and systems of weapons of the years 1940, only there was no strategy ‘real time’ for coordination in military actions between major geographic regions.

The war is based on the coordinated deployment of a single dominant military power, who oversees the actions of allies and partners.

With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the second world war was characterized by the use of conventional weapons. War planning is based on the militarization of space.

Starts a war against Iran, not only the use of nuclear weapons, but the range of new systems of advanced weapons, including the electrothermal weapons and of environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) would be used.
The United Nations Security Council

The UN Security Council approved early June a fourth round of broad sanctions brought against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the embargo on arms and « more stringent financial controls ».

In a bitter irony, this resolution was adopted a few days after the refusal of pure of the Security Council of the United Nations to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the freedom flotilla to Gaza in international waters.

China and Russia, under pressure from the United States, supported the UNSC sanctions regime, in its own biases. Its decision to the Security Council contributes to weaken its own military alliance, the Organization of cooperation of Shanghai (OCS), in which the Iran has observer status. The Security Council resolution, freezing the various agreements of cooperation military and economic of China and Russia with the Iran.

This has serious consequences for the air defence system to Iran, which depends in part on the technology and experience of the Russia.

In fact, the resolution of the Security Council gives « green light » to carry out a pre-emptive war against the Iran.
The American Inquisition – the construction of a consensus policy for war

In chorus, the Western media have described Iran as a threat to global security in the light of its alleged nuclear program (non-existent). Resuming official statements, media are now asking the implementation of punitive bombings directed against the Iran in order to safeguard the security of Israel.

The Western media sound the drums of war. The goal is to instill tacitly in the inner consciousness of the people, through repeated reports in the media over and over again, the idea that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic must be « deported. »

The process of consultation to wage war is similar to the Spanish Inquisition. It is required and demanded submission to the idea that the war is a humanitarian works.

Known and documented, the real threat to global security emanates from the Alliance of the NATO States United Israel; However, the reality in an inquisitorial atmosphere is upside down: the warmongers are attached to peace, the victims of war are the protagonists of the war.

Whereas that, in 2006, almost two-thirds of Americans opposed military action against the Iran, according to a recent 2010 02 Reuter-Zogby survey indicates that 56 percent of Americans favour military action of NATO against the Iran.

A political consensus which is based on a lie cannot, however, rely solely on the official position of those who are the source of the lie.

The movements against the war in the United States, which have in part been infiltrated and co-opted, are in a position of weakness in relation to the Iran. The anti-war movement is divided. Emphasis is placed on the wars that have already occurred (Afghanistan and Iraq) rather than force opposes wars which are preparing and are currently on the Pentagon Office drawing.

Since the inauguration of the Obamaadministration, the anti-war movement has lost momentum.

In contrast, opponents active wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, not necessarily opposed to the realization of « punitive bombings », aimed at Iran, or come as an act of war, which could be the prelude to the third world war in the category of these attacks.

The magnitude of the war against the Iran protest was minimal compared to massive demonstrations that preceded the attack in 2003 and the Iraq invasion.

The real threat to global security emanates from the Alliance the United States / NATO – Israel.

The Iran operation were not opposed to the diplomacy of China and the Russia, but it has the support of the Governments of the Arab front-line States that are integrated into the NATO-mediterraneo dialogue. It also has the tacit support of Western public opinion.

We appeal to the people of all countries, in America, Western Europe, Israel, Turkey and in the world, to stand up against this military project against their Governments who support military action against Iran, against the media that serve to camouflage the devastating consequences of a war against the Iran.

This war is madness. The third war world is terminally.

Albert Einstein understood the dangers of nuclear war and the extinction of life on Earth, which has already begun with the radioactive contamination of depleted uranium.

« I do not know with what weapons World War III, but world war iv be fought fighting with sticks and stones. »

The media, intellectual, scientific, and politicians, choir, obscure the truth is not said, namely that the war that uses nuclear warheads to destroy humanity, and that complex this process of gradual destruction began.

When the lie becomes the truth, there is no return back.

When the war stands as a humanitarian, justice and the entire international legal system are the opposite: pacifism and the anti-war movement are criminalized. Oppose the war becomes a criminal act.

Lies must be exposed as what is and does.

· It penalizes the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children

· It destroys families and individuals. It destroys the commitment of people to his countrymen

· It prevents people express their solidarity in suffering. He defended the war and the police state as the only way

· Destroy internationalism

Pause lie of ways of breaking a criminal project of global destruction, the search for profit are the power primordial.

This advantage to strengthen the military agenda destroyed human values and turns people into unconscious zombie.

· We are going back on the tide

· Defy war criminals in high and powerful corporations and lobbyists that support

· End of the American Inquisition

· End of the United States – NATO – Israel military crusade

· Closure of military bases and weapons factories

· Withdrawal of troops

Members of the armed forces must disobey and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

Part II

Military road

translation of Paco Bello

August 16, 2010

Original version

Storage and deployment of weapon systems advanced against the Iran began following the 2003 bomb attack and the Iraq invasion. From the beginning, these war plans were led by the United States, in collaboration with NATO and Israel.

After the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Bush administration has identified the Iran and Syria as the next stage of the « roadmap for the war ».

American military sources gave to understand that an air strike against the Iran could involve the deployment of large-scale comparable to the United States ‘shock and awe’ bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

« The American airstrikes against the Iran beyond the scope of the Israeli attack of 1981 on the nuclear centre Osiraq in Iraq, and it would seem more in the early days of the air campaign of 2003 against the Iraq ».

(See Globalsecurity )

« Iran, setting short term. »

TIRANNT, « The Iran short-term Scenario » (Theater Iran near term), is named in the code of American military planners for simulations of attack against Iran, which began in May 2003,

« When modelers and intelligence specialists gathered the data necessary for a level framework (i.e., large scale) in the analysis of scenarios for the Iran.  »

(William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006).

The scenario of war consists of several thousand targets inside Iran as part of an operation « shock and awe »:

«  » The analysis, called TIRANNT, for « Stage Iran at short notice », was accompanied by a mock invasion of a simulation scenario of the Iranian missile force and the Marine Corps. Strategists in the United States and Britain conducted maneuvers in the Caspian Sea at the same time. And Bush ordered the strategic command of the United States that prepare a plan of war world attack in order to prepare an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction. All of this ultimately be included in a new plan of war to « major combat operations » against the Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006], which exists in draft form.

… Planners of command, under TIRANNT, Army US Central examined scenarios short and long term of the war against Iran, including all aspects of a major operation to fight, since the mobilization and deployment of forces for the post-war stabilization operations after the change of regime ».

(William Arkin, Washington Post, April 16, 2006)

Different scenarios of ‘combat’ for a general attack saw in Iran:

«  » The US Army, marine, force air and marine have prepared battle plans and have spent years four bases of construction and the creation of the « operation Iranian freedom ». Admiral Fallon, the new head of the US Central command, has inherited the plans of the computer under the name TIRANNT. »

(New Statesman, February 19, 2007)

In 2004, based on the scenarios of war designed with TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney gave instructions to USSTRATCOM develop a contingency plan for a military operation against Iran on a large scale,

« to be employed in response to another terrorist attack of 11-S-type to the United States, assuming that the Government in Tehran would be behind the terrorist plot ».

The plan called for the preventive use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear State:

« The plan includes an air assault on a large scale against the tactical use Iran powerful conventional and nuclear weapons. In Iran, there are more than 450 strategic goals, including many suspected nuclear weapons development program centres. The goals are resistant or are deep underground and could not be destroyed by conventional weapons, where the nuclear option.

As in the case of the Iraq, the response is not conditional, because the Iran is in fact involved in any act of terrorism directed against the United States. « Several senior officers of the air force, who participated in the planning of the reports, are dismayed by the consequences of what they are doing – prepares a nuclear attack unprovoked in Iran – but nobody is prepared to damage his career by raising objections.

(Philip Giraldi, deep, melts the American conservative August 2005)
The military roadmap – ‘ in first Iraq, then the Iran  »

The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT is part of a process more broad military planning and consecutive military operations.

Already under the Clinton administration, the US Central command (USCENTCOM) had formulated « in the theatre of war ‘ plans to invade first Iraq and then the Iran. » Access to oil from the Middle East was the strategic objective:

« All of the interests of national security and the objectives expressed in the National Council for strategic security (NSS) and the national Council of the form of military strategy (NMS) the basis of the military strategy of the United States Central command. The NSS manages the implementation of a policy of double containment of the rogue States of the Iraq and Iran, where these States represent a threat to the interests of the United States, in other States of the region and its own citizens.

Double containment, is designed to maintain the balance of forces in the region without depending on the Iraq and the Iran. USCENTCOM strategy is based on the interests and focuses on the threat. The commitment of the United States, which he defends in the NSS aims to protect vital interests in the United States in the region – uninterrupted and secure access of United States and allies of the oil in the Gulf. »
(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy, the link is is no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9 )))

The war against the Iran is included as part of a series of military operations.

According to the former Commander of NATO, general Wesley Clark, the Pentagon military roadmap consists of a succession of countries:

« [The campaign] a five-year plan [including]… a total of seven countries, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.  »

In « Winning modern wars » (page 130) general Clark stated the following:

« When I returned to the Pentagon in November 2001, I had the time to talk with one of the military officers of senior staff. Yes, again, we were underway against Iraq, « he said. But there was more. This is envisaged as part of a five-year plan, he said, and there are a total of seven countries, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

(See Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to attack the Lebanonglobal research, July 23, 2006)

The role of Israel

There has been much debate over the role of Israel at the beginning of an attack against the Iran. Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a motor. It doesn’t have a separate and distinct military action plan.

Israel is integrated in the plan of war for major combat operations »against the Iran has developed in 2006 by the strategic command (StratCom) in the United States. In the context of military operations on a large scale, a lack of coordination of the unilateral military action by the coalition partner, namely Israel, is a strategic and military almost impossible. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require « green light » from Washington.

An attack on Israel, could, however, use « activation », that it would trigger an all-out war against the Iran, but also a reprisal by the Iran against Israel.

In this regard, there are indications that Washington might consider the possibility of a first attack on Israel (supported by the United States) rather than a purely military operation led by the United States against the Iran. The Israeli attack – although only addressed in close cooperation with the Pentagon and NATO – would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision of Tel-Aviv.

Then it would be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of world opinion, a military intervention by the United States and NATO in order to ‘defend Israel’, instead of attacking the Iran. With the current military cooperation agreements, the United States and NATO would be « forced » to ‘defend Israel’ against the Iran and the Syria.

Note, in this regard, that, at the beginning of the second mandate of Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney alluded to one, in very clear terms, that the Iran was.

« located at the top of the list » rogue « enemy » of America and Israel, so to speak, « attack by us », without military commitment to us and we put pressure on them « to do »

(See Michel Chossudovsky, planned israelo-attaque against the Iran, Global Research, may 1, 2005).

According to Cheney:
« A personal concern I have is that Israel act without inviting… Given that the Iran has a political objective of the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let that the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess. »

(City of Dick Cheney, an interview with MSNBC, January 2005)

Commenting on the statement by the Vice-Chairman, Advisor to former national security Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview with PBS, confirmed with some trepidation, Yes, « Cheney wants to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on behalf of the United States and »make »for us:  »  »

« The Iran think it is more ambiguous. And the issue is certainly not tyranny, but nuclear weapons. « And the Vice President today in a sort of strange parallel to this declaration of freedom statement suggested that the Israelis can do and in fact used a language that sounds like justification or encourage the Israelis to do.

We are talking about is a joint military operation of United States-NATO-Israel to bomb Iran, which has been in the active phase of planning since 2004.

Officials from the Ministry of defence, the Government of Bush and Obama have worked diligently with military counterparts and the Israeli intelligence, carefully identify the targets in Iran. Military practice, Israel to take measures must be planned and coordinated by the highest levels of the United States-led coalition

An attack by Israel also requires American logistical support. United States-NATO, including Israel air defense systems, which are fully integrated with the United States and NATO since January 2009. (See Michel Chossudovsky, U.S. unusually great expedition to Israel of weapons: the United States and Israel planning a broader Middle East war?) Global research, January 11, 2009)

X-band radar of Israel system, created at the beginning of 2009, with technical support from us,

« It is integrated with the Israeli missile defense system and the global network of missile of high altitude in the United States, including satellites, Aegis ships in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, interceptors and radars of Patriot land.  »

(Talk.com, defence, January 6, 2009)

This means that Washington is sending ultimately. USA., plus Israel, controls the air defence system:

« It is and will remain a U.S. radar system, » said the spokesman of the Pentagon Geoff Morrell. «  »If this is not something we give or sell to Israelis and is something that will probably require the staff of the operations on the US site. »  »  »

(Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009, emphasis added).

U.S. Army monitor the Israeli air defense system, which is integrated into the world system of the Pentagon.

In other words, Israel can not launch a war against the Iran without the consent of Washington. Where the significance of the legislation called ‘Green light’ Conference, sponsored by the Republican party by virtue of the resolution of the camera 1553 (HR1553), which explicitly supports an Israeli attack on the Iran:

«  » « The measure expounded by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of his colleagues, authorize the use by Israel of »all means necessary against the Iran », including the use of military force »…

« Had to do this. We need to demonstrate our support to Israel. « Must stop playing with this key ally in a difficult place.  » « .

(See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro warns against an imminent nuclear war;) Admiral Mullen threatens the Iran; US-Israel vs Iran-Hezbollah Confrontation builds on, Global research, August 10, 2010)

In practice, the Bill is more a ‘Luz Verde’ in the White House and the Pentagon for Israel. It is the label for a war sponsored by the United States against Iran with Israel as a platform for military launch at convenience. It also serves as a justification for the war in order to defend Israel.

In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext for the war, in response to allegations of infringement or attacks of Hamas and Hezbollah at the start of hostilities in Israel on the Lebanon border. What is crucial is that a little ‘incident’ could be used to trigger a military operation against the Iran.

It is known by military strategists of the USA to Israel (before us) would be the first target of military reprisals from the Iran. In general the terms will be Israeli victims of the machinations of Washington and his own Government. It is therefore absolutely crucial that Israelis vigorously opposes any action by Netanyahu’s Government to attack the Iran.
Second World War – the role of the strategic command (StratCom) in the US

Global military operations are coordinated by United States strategic command (STRATCOM), whose headquarters are at the base of aviation to Offutt in Nebraska, in collaboration with the regional command of the hunt of the unified command (for example, the American Central Fla. command, which is responsible for the region of Central Asia, see map), as well as units of the command of coalition in Israel the Turkey, the Persian Gulf and the military base of Diego García in the Indian ocean.

Military planning and decision-making at the level of a different Allied American and NATO as « partner countries » is integrated into a global, military design and includes the weaponization of space.

Under its new mandate, STRATCOM has the responsibility to « oversee a comprehensive attack plan », which involves both conventional weapons such as nuclear. In military jargon, is intended to play the role of

« a global integrator charged with the missions of space operations, information operations; Missile defence integrated; Command and overall control. Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; «World attack and strategic deterrence…» »

USSTRATCOM responsibilities include:

« leadership, planning and executing strategic deterrence operations » at the global level, « synchronizing global missile defence plans and »operations », »synchronization of regional plans to fight », etc. »

USSTRATCOM is the governing body in the coordination of modern warfare.

In January 2005, at the beginning of the deployment and military storage against the Iran, STRATCOM, was found

« I command fighter of advanced integration and synchronization of the efforts of all the Department of defense in the fight against weapons of mass destruction.

(Michel Chossudovsky, research world nuclear against the Iran war, January 3, 2006).

Which means that coordination of a large-scale attack on Iran, including the various scenarios of climbing in and beyond the region of Central Asia to the Middle East, will be coordinated by the STRATCOM.


Competition of the US Central command
Tactical nuclear weapons against the Iran

Confirmed by military documents, as well as official statements, Israel and the United States consider the use of nuclear weapons against the Iran.

In 2006, the strategic command (StratCom) of the United States announced that he had reached the operational capacity for the rapid attack of targets around the world with nuclear or conventional weapons.

The announcement was made after the end of military exercises conducted by the United States associated with a nuclear attack on a fictitious country.

(David Ruppe, preventive nuclear war in a State of readiness: U.S. command says global capacity keystroke, Global Security Newswire, December 2, 2005)

With respect to continuity with the era Bush-Cheney:

President Obama has broadly endorsed the doctrine of the pre-emptive right to the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons made by the previous administration.

After the revision of the nuclear positioning of 2010, the Obama administration confirmed.

« reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the Iran » for its failure to comply with the requirements on its alleged nuclear program (non-existent).

( Nuclear option on the Iran threat of Israeli attack-related ( -IPS ipsnews.net, April 23, 2010).

The Obama administration has also suggested that it would use nuclear weapons in case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on the Iran.


Israel has also developed its own ‘secret plans’ in the Iran of the bomb with tactical nuclear weapons:

« The Israeli military commanders believe that conventional attacks are no longer sufficient annihilate a, better defended enrichment facilities,. ‘. Several below 70 feet of concrete and rock – at least – were built. « However, warhead penetrates bunkers would be used only if a conventional attack is ignored, and if the United States refused to intervene, according to high-ranking sources. »

( Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on the Iran ( -Times online, January 7, 2007)

Obama statements on the use of nuclear weapons against the Iran and North Korea are relative to the position of the doctrine 11 – S of the United States on nuclear weapons, which allows to use tactical nuclear weapons in conventional warfare scenario.

Through a propaganda campaign that has won support of the ‘authorities’ scientific nuclear, « mini » weapons is maintained as an instrument of peace, i.e., as a way to fight against « Islamic terrorism » and the creation of systems of ‘democracy’ of Western style in Iran. Low-yield nuclear weapons have been declared as ‘weapons of battle.

And they are programmed to be used against the Iran and the Syria in the next step of the ‘war on terror’, as well as conventional weapons.

« Officials argue that low-power nuclear weapons are necessary as a credible deterrent force against rogue States. [Korea in northern Iran, the Syria,]. Their logic is that existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used in a full-scale nuclear war. Have potential enemies, so we do not believe that the threat of nuclear retaliation is credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are less destructive, which could be used. Which would make it more effective as a deterrent ». (The opposition is surprised by the elimination of funding the research of nuclear weapons. News, November 29, 2004)

Preferred to use against the Iran nuclear weapons are tactical nuclear weapons (Made in America), namely gusts pumps bunker with nuclear warheads (for example, B61.11), with an explosive capacity between one-third and six times the Hiroshima bomb.

The B61-11 is the ‘nuclear’ 113 BLU ‘classic’ version or GBU28 guided bomb unit-. They can be used as conventional bunker-pop bombs. (See Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see also http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris).

While the United States does not include the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against the Iran, the nuclear arsenal of Israel is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs that could be deployed and used in a war with the Iran.

Under the system of missile Israeli Jericho-III, in a range between 4 800 km 6 500 km, the Iran would be handy.

Guided classic pump unit GBU-27 revienta-búnkeres
Bunker-splinters of the B61 bomb

Radioactive fallout

The theme of radioactive fallout and pollution, carelessly neglected by American military analysts and NATO would be devastating, that may affect a large area of the Middle East (including Israel) and in the region of Central Asia.

In a completely twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as the means to build peace and to avoid « collateral damage » and while no Iranian nuclear weapons are a threat to global security, the United States and Israel are instruments of peace « without danger for the civilian population ».
‘Mother of all bombs’ (MOAB) was to be used against the Iran

A military interest in the arsenal of conventional weapons of the USA is the « weapon » of 21 500 books, dubbed the « mother of all bombs. » The GBU-43/B or the GBU-43/B or the Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was classified ‘as the strongest – ever designed non-nuclear weapon’ the arsenal of conventional weapons with great American superior performance

The MOAB has been tested in early March 2003, before being deployed in the theatre of war in Iraq. According to US military sources, the heads of commune had warned in 2003 for the Government of Saddam Hussein before launching the ‘mother of all bombs’, its use had been covered. (There are reports not confirmed who served in Iraq).

The U.S. Department of defense has confirmed its intention to use the « mother of all bombs (MOAB) against Iran in October 2009.

The MOAB is you said,

«ideal deeply strike the underground nuclear facility at Natanz or Qom in Iran.

(Jonathan Karl, Is the U.S. preparing to bomb Iran? ) ) ( ABC News, October 9, 2009).

The truth is that the country of MOAB, by their explosive capacity, would result in a huge number of civilian casualties. It is a « killing machine » conventional with a nuclear mushroom cloud.

The manufacture of 4 MOABs was implemented in October 2009 with a cost of 58.4 million dollars (14.6 million dollars for each pump). This amount includes the costs of development and testing, as well as the integration of MOAB bombers pumps B – 2 Stealth. (Ibid.). This contract is directly related to preparations for war against the Iran.

The notification is contained in the 93-page Memorandum of reprogramming, which includes the following instructions:

« The Department has an urgent operational need (UON) for the ability to attack underground fortifications in high threat environments. [The mother of all bombs] MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [urgent operational requirement] « . »

In addition, it establishes that the application is approved by the Pacific command (which has the responsibility of North Korea) and Central command (which has responsibility for the Iran). »

(ABC News, op. cit.)

The Pentagon provides a process of destruction of the infrastructure of the Iran and a large number of civilian casualties through the combination of tactical nuclear weapons and the monstrous of mushroom cloud conventional bombs, including the MOAB and the largest GBU 57 a-/ B or Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms of explosive ability.

The MOP is described as,

« a new pump high performance directly to underground nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea. » «  » The gigantic pump measure more than 11 people shoulder against more than 20 feet from the base to the tip or shoulder (see image below) »

(‘See Edwin black,’Super Bunker Buster bombs-accelerated for use as Possible against the Iran and North Korea nuclear programs », edge, September 21, 2009″)

‘Mother of all bombs’ (MOAB)
GBU – 57 a / B penetrator mass of artillery (MOP)

screenshots of the test: the explosion and mushroom cloud
State of qualified arm – ‘War Possible with new technologies’

The United States military decision-making process in relation to the Iran enjoys support of program Star Wars, the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and information systems.

Taking into account the progress of military technology and the development of new weapons systems, an attack on the Iran could be significantly different depending on the combination of weapon systems, compared the attack on Iraq in March 2003. The Iran operation is planned to use the most advanced weapons and systems in support of their air strikes. In all likelihood, will be to test new weapons systems.

Project for the new American century 2000 (PNAC) entitled reconstruction of American defenses (defenses completo Rebuilding America), large-scale, emphasized the mandate of the army in terms of wars to be conducted simultaneously in different regions of the world:

« Fight and win decisively the multiple wars and simultaneous scenarios. »

This formulation is equivalent to a global war of conquest led by a single Imperial superpower. The PNAC document also asked the transformation of U.S. forces to operate,

« revolution in military affairs ‘, namely the implementation of ‘ technologies new possible war.

(See the project for a new American century – project for the new American century ))).

It is to develop and improve the skills of the State’s machine killing world on the basis of a new sophisticated, weapons arsenal which would eventually replace the existing paradigms.

« Therefore, it is expected that the transformation process will indeed be a two-step process: first of transition, after a more profound transformation.  » Breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, the unmanned aerial vehicles begin to be as numerous as manned aircraft.

In this regard, the Pentagon should be wary of making significant investments in new programs – tanks, planes, aircraft carriers, for example – which would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms of war for decades to come.


The war against the Iran, in fact, could mark the turning point, with new weapons systems to the space that would apply to disable an enemy with large conventional military capacity, including more than one million troops.
Electromagnetic weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran communications systems, disable the power generators, undermine and destabilize the command – and – control, public infrastructure, energy, transport, etc.

Within the same family of these weapons, environmental modification techniques ENMOD (war climate), developed the program HAARP could be applied. (See Michel Chossudovsky, « owning the weather for military use », Global Research, September 27, 2004 « ‘).

These weapon systems are fully operational. In this context, the AF 2025 United States Air Force document explicitly recognizes the military applications of technologies related to climate change:

« Climate change will become a part of national and international security and could be unilaterally… You can have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for the purposes of deterrence.

« The ability to generate precipitation, fog and on the Earth, storms, or to modify the environment in space, improve communications by modifying the ionosphere (the use of ionospheric mirrors) and the production of artificial climate, are part of a set integrated technologies that can provide substantial increases in the United States or reduce the ability of the opponent to make collective awareness goals and power ».

(Air Force 2025).

Electromagnetic radiation which allows « remote health deterioration » is expected in the theater of war.

(See Babacek Mojmír, electromagnetic weapons information, Global Research, August 6, 2004).

Also be expected as it suggests the new PNAC military uses of biological weapons by the United States:

‘Advanced biological weapon forms which can be ‘objective’ specific genotypes may modify biological warfare of « terror » in a political instrument useful.’

(PNAC, op. cit., p. 60)

Iran – missiles in the medium and long term of military capabilities

The Iran has made progress in its military capabilities, including long and medium-range missiles capable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States.

From where insistence of the Alliance between the United States and NATO in Israel on the use of nuclear weapons, should be used actively and in response to an attack with missiles of Iranian retaliation.

Range of the Iran Shahab missiles.

In November 2006, two land-based missiles by the Iran tests were marked by a precise planning in a carefully prepared operation. According to an American expert in first line of missile (quoted by Debka),.

« Iranians today, showed that its missile technology was not known by the West.  »

(See Michel Chossudovsky, of the Iran « power of deterrence » ‘Global Research, November 5, 2006)

Israel acknowledged that,

« the Shehab-3, which gives the range of 2 000 km to Israel, to reach the Middle East and Europe.

(Debka, November 5, 2006)

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of the program for ballistic missiles to Israel,

« the military exercise was of unprecedented intensity… Assumed that it would be awesome and it was awesome. »

(www.cnsnews.com – November 3, 2006).

2006 exercises, while they created a political uproar in the United States and Israel, is not somehow the coalition between Israel and NATO and the resolution of the United States. UU conducted against the Iran.

Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it would respond if attacked. Israel would be the immediate objective of the Iranian missile attacks as so the Iranian Government confirmed.

The air defense system Israel is crucial. In the United States and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi military installations, the Turkey and the Gulf countries can also be attacked by the Iran.
Iranian army

While the Iran is surrounded by the United States and the military bases of their allies, the Islamic Republic of Iran has a significant military capacity. (See map below)

What is important is to recognize the importance of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, marine, Aviation) over American and NATO for the Afghanistan and the Iraq forces.

Facing a well-organized insurgency, the coalition forces are already saturated, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

These forces could deal with Iranian forces if they were to go on the current battlefield of the Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of the resistance movement in the United States and its allies of occupation, could be potentially destabilizing.

Iranian army,

they are in the order of about 700 000 soldiers, whose 130 000 are professionals, 220 000 conscripts and 350 000 are in the reserve.
(See army of the Islamic Republic of Iran – Wikipedia ))

Staff who made up the Iranian Navy’s 18 000 soldiers and 52 000 for the air force.

According to the International Institute for strategic studies,

« the revolutionary guards has a population estimated at 125 000 that are part of the five branches: its own Navy, army air forces on the ground, and the Qods force (special forces).  »

According to Chen, the resistance of Iran Basij voluntary paramilitary forces, controlled by the guardians of the revolution

« he has a staff of 90 000 estimates on active duty, uniformed full time, 300 000 reservists members and a total of 11 million men who can be mobilized if necessary » (special forces)

In other words, the Iran can mobilize up to half a million regular troops and several million belonging to the militia. Quds special forces are already operating inside the Iraq.

American and Allied military installations surrounding the Iran

For several years the Iran has its own war with exercises and exercises.

Its long and medium-range missiles are fully operational. Iranian soldiers are on alert. The Iranian troops are concentrated in a few kilometres, the Iraqis and the Afghans and near the Kuwait border. The Iranian Navy has been deployed in the Persian Gulf and the proximity of installations U.S. and their allies in the United Arab Emirates.

It is interesting to note that, in response to the growth of the military forces of the Iran, to the United States were transfer large quantities of weapons to its NATO allies in the Persian Gulf, such as Saudi Arabia and the Kuwait.

While the Iran advanced weapons are not at the height of the United States and NATO, the Iranian forces would be able to inflict heavy losses on the coalition forces in a scenario of conventional warfare on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan.

In December 2009 the Iranian tanks and troops on the ground have crossed the border into Iraq without being confronted or questioned by the Allied forces and occupied a disputed territory in the oilfield’s Eastern Maysan.

Even in the case of a lightning war focused on Iran military installations, communications systems, etc. through massive air bombardment, cruise, bombs revienta-búnkeres classic and tactical missile nuclear war with the Iran once launched can lead to a ground war.

This is something on which the U.S. military strategists do not reflect doubt in their war simulation scenarios.

· An operation of this type would result in significant losses, the military and civilians, especially if nuclear weapons are used.

· The expansion of the budget for the war in Afghanistan that is being debated in the US Congress, will also go for use during a possible attack against the Iran.

· In a scenario of escalation, Iranian troops could cross the border in Iraq and Afghanistan.

· At the same time, the military escalation with nuclear weapons could lead to a scenario of III de Guerra Mundial, which would extend beyond the region of the Middle East to Central Asia.

· In a very real sense, this military project, which has been the drawing board of the Pentagon for more than five years, threatening the future of humanity.

Our test focused on preparations for war.

The fact that these preparations for war are in an advanced state does not imply that they do.

The Alliance: the NATO-States-US-Israel, is aware that the enemy has important to react and respond capabilities. This same factor in itself played a crucial role in the past five years for the decision of the United States of America and its allies postponed an attack against the Iran.

Another essential factor is the structure of military alliances. While NATO has become a formidable force, the Organization of cooperation of Shanghai (OCS), which is a partnership between the Russia and China and several former Soviet republics is considerably weakened.

The course of the military threats of the US against China and the Russia aims to weaken the OCS and to discourage any form of military action by the allies of the Iran attack by us NATO and Israel.

What are the countervailing forces that could prevent this war from happening? There are many current forces within the apparatus of State of the United States of America:

· the United States Congress

· the Pentagon


Finally, the main force in the prevention of war comes from the social base, which requires national and international action strong against it hundreds of millions of people across the country.

People must mobilize against this evil military action, but also against the authority of the State and its officials, who must be questioned.

This war is avoidable, if people react against their Governments, the pressure of their elected representatives, organizing at the local level in cities, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform citizens about the consequences of a nuclear war, the debate and discuss within the armed forces.

The celebrations of mass demonstrations and protests against the war is not enough. It requires the development of a network of large scale and well organized against the war which put to the test the structures of power and authority.

What is needed is a massive movement of those who have the strength and challenged the legitimacy of the war, a global background wave that criminalize war.


Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )


Connexion à %s