Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
U.S. Plans to
With or Without Tactical Nuclear Weapons
MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 3 April: In recent days article after article
and interview after interview have underscored the very real danger
that the U.S. and Israel are in fact, not just in threat, preparing to
attack Iran and attempt to destroy Iranian weapons
capabilities. Also in recent days the Iranians have
very publicly 'tested' and announced new weapons that if actually developed and
deployed could be used to greatly harm the U.S., Israel, and allies as
well as possibly cripple the world economy through blocking the Straits of Hormuz...all with unforetold
but sure to be historic consequences.
Among the great ironies of the current
historical moment is that the small country in the Middle East that
the vast arsenal of nuclear and weapons of mass destruction is the one
threatening to attack, in tandem with the Americans, to prevent any
other country from having even a small arsenal of such weapons.
this that the one superpower
that possesses a world-wide military -- including unprecedented
'conventional' power and unique high-tech capabilities -- is even so
threatening Iran with tactical
nuclear devices even as it demands that Iran and all non-U.S. allies
from building any counterveiling or deterrent weapons of their
Will The U.S. Nuke Iran?
Professor of Physics Highlights The
Jeorge Hirsch, Professor of Physics at University of California
Diego, draws the attention of the international community to
the threats and dangers of
a US nuclear attack on Iran.
Click Play To View
Iran fires naval missile
into nuclear debate
Tait in Tehran
April 3, 2006
sent a bellicose message to the west yesterday amid the delicate
diplomacy surrounding its suspected nuclear weapons programme, by
firing what it called the world's fastest underwater missile.
amid a week of Iranian war games in the Gulf, yesterday's test appeared
to raise the stakes in the nuclear stand-off, which entered a new phase
last week after the UN security council gave the Islamic regime 30 days
to halt uranium enrichment activities or face possible punishment. Iran
says it will not abandon its nuclear programme, which it says is
television footage showed a missile, fired from a ship, obliterating a
target after travelling rapidly just below the water's surface.
missile, said to have a top speed of 225mph, carries a powerful warhead
designed to destroy large submarines, said General Ali Fadavi, deputy
head of Iran's navy. He added: "Even if enemy warship sensors identify
the missile, no warship can escape from this missile because of its
Friday, Iran test fired a stealth missile with a range of 25 miles
which its defence chiefs claim has the ability to hit multiple targets
and avoid radar.
yesterday's Jonathan Dimbleby programme, the US secretary of state,
Condoleezza Rice, insisted America was committed to resolving the
nuclear row diplomatically. "Iran is not Iraq. I know that's what's on
people's minds. The circumstances are different," she said. "However,
the president of the United States doesn't take his options off the
Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar
Minister of China Dai Bingguo, Foreign Minister of Great Britain Jack
Straw, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Foreign Ministers
of Germany Frank Walter Steinmeier, Russia Sergey Lavrov, France
Philippe Douste-Blazy and Javier Solana, European High Representative
of the Common Foreign and Security Policy brief the Media after a
meeting about the Iranian nuclear program at the Foreign Ministry in
Berlin on Thursday, March 30, 2006. (AP Photo/Markus Schreiber)
Iran (AP) - 31 March - By ALI
AKBAR DAREINI - Iran's military said Friday it successfully test-fired a
missile not detectable by radar that can use multiple warheads to hit
several targets simultaneously, a development that raised concerns in
the United States and Israel.
Fajr-3, which means "victory" in Farsi, can reach Israel and U.S. bases
in the Middle East, Iranian state media indicated. The announcement of
the test-firing is likely to stoke regional tensions and feed suspicion
about Tehran's military intentions and nuclear ambitions.
it demonstrates that Iran has a very active and aggressive military
program under way," State Department deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said
in Washington. "I think Iran's military posture, military development
effort, is of concern to the international community."
Hossein Salami, the air force chief of Iran's elite Revolutionary
Guards, did not specify the missile's range, saying how far it can
travel depends on the weight of its warheads.
state-run television described the weapon as "ballistic" - suggesting
it is of comparable range to Iran's existing ballistic rocket, which
can travel about 1,200 miles and reach arch-foe Israel and U.S. bases
in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.
remarkable goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran's defense forces was
realized with the successful test-firing of a new missile with greater
technical and tactical capabilities than those previously produced,"
Salami said on television, which showed a brief clip of the missile's
"It can avoid anti-missile missiles and strike
the target," the general said.
He said the missile would carry a multiple
warhead, and each warhead would be capable of hitting its target
causes much concern, and that concern is shared by many countries in
the international community, about Iran's aggressive nuclear weapons
program and her parallel efforts to develop delivery systems, both in
the field of ballistic missiles and cruise missiles," said Israeli
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.
combination of extremist jihadist ideology, together with nuclear
weapons and delivery systems, is a combination that no one in the
international community can be complacent about," Regev said.
Alpher, an Israeli consultant on the Mideast peace process, said the
news "escalates the arms race between Iran and all those who are
concerned about Iran's aggressive intentions and nuclear potential."
it's escalation, and also an attempt by Iran to flex its muscles as it
goes into a new phase of the diplomatic struggle with the U.N. Security
Oppenheimer, a weapons expert at Jane's Information Group, said the
missile test could be an indication that Iran has MIRV capability. MIRV
refers to multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, which
are intercontinental ballistic missiles with several warheads, each of
which could be directed to a different target.
description, it could be a MIRV. If you are saying that from a single
missile, separate warheads can be independently targeted then yes, this
is significant," he said.
don't know how accurate the Iranians are able to make their missiles
yet, and this is a crucial point," Oppenheimer said.
missile is adaptable for nuclear warheads, then they are well on the
way," he added. "But they have not made a nuclear warhead yet. The
current estimates are it could take five years."
Iran's existing ballistic rocket is called
Shahab-3, which means "shooting star." It is capable of carrying a
Israel and the United States have jointly
developed the Arrow anti-ballistic missile system in response to the
launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq
to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced
its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.
former Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said Tehran had successfully
tested a solid fuel motor for the Shahab-3, a technological
breakthrough in Iran's military.
the Revolutionary Guards general, said Friday the Iranian-made missile
was test-fired as large military maneuvers began in the Persian Gulf
and the Arabian Sea. The maneuvers are to last a week and will involve
17,000 Revolutionary Guards as well as boats, fighter jets and
come amid growing concern over Iran's nuclear program. The United
States and its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear
weapons, but Tehran denies that, saying its nuclear program is for
Security Council is demanding that Iran halt its uranium enrichment
activities. But an Iranian envoy said its activities are "not
War Against Iran, April 2006
Biological Threat and Executive Order 13292
By Jorge Hirsch
-- -- History repeats itself, but always with new twists. We are back
to the good old days when a Declaration of War preceded the start
war. Such declaration occurred on March 16th, 2006. Reversing the old
order, we are now in the "Sitzkrieg", to be followed shortly by an
aerial "Blitzkrieg" in the coming days.
In the old days, Congress declared war, and directed the Executive to
take action. In the new millenium, the Executive declared war last
March 16th, then Congress will pass H.R. 282, "To hold the
regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to support
a transition to democracy in Iran." This bill and previous
it are in direct violation of the legally binding Algiers
signed by the United States and Iran on January 19, 1981, that states "The
United States pledges that it is and from now on will be the policy of
the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically
or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs"; however, this is clearly of no interest
to the 353 policymakers sponsoring the bill.
The US promised Russia and China that the UN Security Council
statement just approved will not be a trigger for military action after
30 days; true to its promise, the US will attack before
the 30-day deadline imposed by the UNSC for Iran to stop its nuclear
enrichment activity, i.e. before the end of April. The "justification"
is likely to be an alleged threat of imminent biological attack
Declaration of War against Iran
In the aftermath of
Pearl Harbor, the Congressional Declaration of December 8, 1941
stated: " Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed
unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the
United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and
House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the
Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United
States is hereby formally declared; and the president is hereby
authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces
of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on
war against the Imperial Government of Japan."
Similarly, the formal war declaration against Iran, the National
Security Strategy of March 16, 2006, stated:
• "We may face no
greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."
• "The Iranian regime
sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel;
seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and
denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
• "[T]he first duty of
the United States Government remains
what it always has been: to protect the American people and American
interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty
obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all
elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage."
• "The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction
– and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place
of the enemy's attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist
attack with WMD."
• "To forestall or
prevent such hostile acts by our
adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
• "When the
consequences of an attack with WMD are potentially
so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers
• "[T]here will always
be some uncertainty about the status of hidden programs."
• "Advances in
biotechnology provide greater opportunities for
state and non-state actors to obtain dangerous pathogens and equipment."
• "Biological weapons
also pose a grave WMD threat because of
the risks of contagion that would spread disease across large
populations and around the globe."
• "Countering the
spread of biological weapons .... will also
enhance our Nation's ability to respond to pandemic public health
threats, such as avian influenza."
This has to be combined with the 2005 U.S. State Department
The United States judges that, based on all available information, Iran
has an offensive biological weapons program in violation of the BWC."
In addition, the March 16 declaration makes it clear that the US
will use nuclear weapons in the war against Iran:
• ."..using all
elements of national power..."
• "Safe, credible, and
reliable nuclear forces continue to play
a critical role. We are strengthening deterrence by developing a New
Triad composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and improved
and this is further reinforced by the just released
Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction"[pdf] that
states "Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and
nuclear) and/or non-kinetic options (e.g. information operations) to
deter or defeat a WMD threat or subsequent use of WMD."
There is of course also the claim that Iran is a threat because
intends to develop nuclear weapons. The sole purpose of that claim,
which flies in the face of all available evidence, is to generate a
diplomatic stalemate at the UN that will allow Bush to state that
other nations share the US concern but not the resolve to act.
the actual trigger for the bombing to begin will not be the
and by now discredited nuclear threat, rather it is likely to be
threat of an imminent biological attack.
There is no casus
belli against Iran based on its nuclear program. The IAEA has
evidence that in the 20 years of its development there has been any
diversion of nuclear material to military applications. The Bush
administration now officially acknowledges that the issue with Iran
arises from a "loophole" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,
allows non-nuclear countries to pursue uranium enrichment.
is not a loophole, the right to a full civilian nuclear program is an
integral part of the compromise, that made non-nuclear countries agree
to it. For the US to call it a loophole means to abrogate the treaty
unilaterally and propose a different treaty that non-nuclear countries
will have no motivation to agree to.
The Bush administration declares that a civilian nuclear program that
gives Iran "knowledge" or "capability" to build a nuclear weapon
unacceptable. It could apply exactly the same logic to biotechnology.
The State Department says that "Iran is expanding its
and biomedical industries by building large, state-of-the-art research
and pharmaceutical production facilities. These industries could easily
hide pilot to industrial-scale production capabilities for a potential
BW program, and could mask procurement of BW-related process
equipment." Why isn't the US demanding that Iran stops its
biotechnology research and development, and that it transfers all
biotech related activities to Russia?
The key lies in Executive Order 13292, which made information on
"weapons of mass destruction" and on "defense against transnational
terrorism" classified. If concrete details about Iran's alleged
biological weapons programs were made public, they would be subject to
public scrutiny and they would be discredited, as the allegations
Iran's "nuclear weapons program" have been. The US is likely to have
"assembled" classified information on Iran's biological weapons
programs and shared it with selected individuals, including members of
Congress, under the constraint that classified information cannot be
made public. For example, at the June 25, 2004 House subcommittee
"MEMBERS ONLY CLASSIFIED BRIEFING on Iran, Middle East Proliferation
and Terrorist Capabilities." The unclassified
portion of that briefing states "It is time for Iran to declare
biological weapons program and make arrangements for its dismantlement."
There is likely to be a team of "experts" lined up by the
administration that will support its claims that Iran had a
weapons program representing an imminent threat. There is always room
in science for differing opinions, and if an open scientific debate is
not possible because information is classified, any outlandish claim
can find some supporters in the scientific community. The most
biological threat to be invoked, because it has a natural time
associated with it, is the threat of a bird flu pandemic caused by a
deliberately mutated H5N1 virus carried by migrating wild birds.
The Biological Threat
Consider for example Dr. Ward Casscells, a renowned cardiologist
has of late become an "expert" in bioterrorism. Even more
Dr. Casscells joined the Army as a colonel . According to the US
Defense Department, "his years of research on now-spreading avian
are now deemed cutting edge." However, I know of no independent
credible scientific body that makes the same assessment: Dr. Casscells
has written a total of four papers on the effect of influenza on
cardiac disease which have been cited by no other scientists. His paper
"Influenza as a bioweapon" has a grand total of 5 citations, meaning a
mere 5 other papers refer to it; "cutting edge" scientific papers have
hundreds or thousands of citations. His only other paper on the
subject, "Influenza as a bioterror threat: the need for global
vaccination" has zero citations.
Nonetheless, Dr. Casscells' outstanding credentials as a
will be invoked by the administration if he vouches for the credibility
of "intelligence" indicating that a dangerous mutated bird flu virus
has been developed in an Iranian underground bioweapons laboratory. Dr.
Casscells has been surveilling the Middle East to "scope out the
possibility for a widespread outbreak" of bird flu. Because he has been
advocating the view that "Bird flu is poised to be an explosive
problem" and has predicted the use of influenza as a bioweapon,
likely to be inclined to believe such claims. Similarly his scientific
colleagues at the "Defense of Houston" committee, that work on
anticipating bioterrorism threats and are highly lauded by the
administration and very well funded by Army grants.
The Bush administration has spent vast sums of money in
bioterrorism threats, reportedly over $7 billion per year, without any
evidence or precedent for bioterrorism attacks. Nevertheless there
will always be plenty of scientists that will flock to where the
money is and devote efforts to validate conclusions that are valued by
the organizations giving the grants, and news media duly publicize the
hyped threat of bioterrorism. Still, last year over 700
including 2 Nobel laureates signed a petition objecting to the
diversion of funds from projects of high public-health importance to
biodefense, calling it a "misdirection" of priorities. Dr. Richard H.
Ebright, a renowned molecular biologist, states that "A majority
the nation's top microbiologists – the very group that the Bush
administration is counting on to carry out its biodefense research
agenda – dispute the premises and implementation of the biodefense
On the supposed threat of bird flu, while it is continuously being
hyped by the administration , , , ,
opinion is that it is not a serious threat , ,
,  and is politically motivated. The blaming of
spread on wild birds is also highly questionable , .
On March 15th, right before the disclosure of the new National Security
Strategy, I suggested the bird flu casus belli against Iran, that
would "necessitate" bombing of Iranian facilities before
the bird migration season begins in the Spring. Several elements
emphasized in the March 16 NSS appear to support that scenario,
discussed above. In a March 20 press conference concerning
preparedness for avian flu, Secretary Michael Leavitt (who also
a few weeks ago to store tuna and milk under the bed to prepare for
bird flu ) stated "Think of the world if you will as a vast forest that
is susceptible to fire. A spark if allowed to burn will emerge as an
uncontainable fire. That's a pandemic. If we are there when the spark
happens, it can be squelched. But if allowed to burn for a time it
begins to spread uncontrollably." An aerial attack on Iranian
installations may be touted as the "squelching" of the bird flu
Bush need congressional authorization to bomb Iran?
answer is contained in
the Statement by the president of October 16, 2002, in signing
law the congressional authorization to use force against Iraq. It states
additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against
Iraq, should force become necessary. While I appreciate receiving that
support, my request for it did not, and my signing this resolution does
not, constitute any change in the long-standing positions of the
executive branch on either the president's constitutional authority to
use force to deter, prevent, or respond to aggression or other threats
to U.S. interests or on the constitutionality of the War Powers
In other words: "I appreciate Congress' authorization but didn't need
it and will not need it next time with Iran."
The War Powers Resolution encourages the president to consult
Congress "in every possible instance", yet allows the president
introduce Armed Forces into hostilities without Congressional
authorization; it simply compels him to terminate hostilities within 60
to 90 days unless Congress authorizes an extension. Plenty time enough.
is unlikely that there
will be a public announcement of the impending attack before it starts,
since it would generate opposition. Allies do not want to be
implicated and will deny any knowledge. Who will be officially notified
that an attack is about to take place? Most likely, Iran itself.
Direct conversations between the US and Iran are about to start,
nominally on the subject of Iraq only. They will also provide the only
direct conduit for the US to communicate with Iran without
intermediaries. An "ultimatum" unacceptable to Iran, as was delivered
publicly to Iraq on March 17th, 2003, could be delivered
Iran through that route.
reasons for our actions will be clear, the force measured, and the
The initial US attack on Iranian facilities is likely to be "measured":
a highly accurate strike on selected facilities "suspected" of
bioweapons work, with cruise missiles launched from
ships in the Persian Gulf. That is a component of the CONPLAN
Global Strike mission, which recently became operational and also
includes nuclear preemptive strikes.
The "clear" reasons and "just" cause for the administration to attack
can be stated as follows: if a bird flu pandemic can cause 150
deaths and there is even a one percent probability that the
"intelligence" is right, i.e. even if there is a 99%
about the status of hidden programs", the expected number of
that would be prevented by bombing the Iranian facilities is the
product of those two numbers, i.e. 1.5 million, vastly larger than the
few thousand Iranian casualties due to "collateral damage."
Any military reaction by Iran to the attack, perhaps even a
reaction, will be construed as "aggression" by Iran towards the US and
Israel, and result in large scale bombing of Iranian missile, nuclear
and other facilities. Does that sound absurd? Recall that the US
Britain bombed Iraq's no-fly zones well before the Iraq invasion,
and Iraqi response was labeled "aggression toward planes of the
Nuclear earth penetrating weapons may be used in the initial attack,
and certainly will be used in the large scale attack that will follow.
Why will this happen? Because it was "pencilled in" a long time
The actions of the US against Iran in recent years have been
directed towards a confrontation, to suppress the rise of Iran as
strong regional power that does not conform to US interests.
it be Prevented?
small group of thugs is
about to lead America across a line of no return. On the other
this line there is no nuclear taboo, no restraint on preemptive nuclear
attacks on non-nuclear nations, and no incentive for non-nuclear
nations to remain non-nuclear. A global nuclear war and the destruction
of humanity will be a distinct possibility.
Americans are largely unaware of what is about to happen. Half a
million people go to the streets on immigration law, yet nobody is
demonstrating against the Iran war that will radically change the life
of Americans for generations to come. The more informed sectors of
society, scientists, arms control organizations, the media, the
political establishment, the military, are not taking a strong stand
against the impending war. Congress is silent.
Only people in the know can stop this. Resigning from the job is not
good enough , , . People
in the know have to come forward with information that brings the
impending attack to the forefront of attention of Congress and the
American public and thwarts it. Not doing so is being complicit in a plan
that will bring tragic consequences to America and the world.
Else, all that will be left is to bring the perpetrators to
Danton, Robespierre, Mussolini, Petain, Ribbentrop, Goering, Ceausescu
also occupied positions of power and prominence at some point in their
Hirsch is a professor of physics at the University of California San
- YOUR COMMENTS
REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org
2006 MiddleEast.Org Mid-East Realities,
All Rights Rreserved