WWW III Imminent

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

1/61

PREFACE

Phony intelligence was created and fed into the news chain with

a view to justifying the invasion of Iraq.

The balance-sheet of lies and fabricated intelligence presented inthis selection of articles provides detailed and overwhelming

evidence.

We have included news reports dating back to 2002, backgroundanalysis, commentary, leaked intelligence documents and

transcripts, secret memos and the reports by weapons

inspectors.

The collection which is intended to provide key references, alsoaddresses a number of important issues, which have been

shoved under the carpet, including the circumstances of DavidKelly's death, plagiarism in the drafting of intelligencedocuments, the fabricated biochemical terror threats, etc.

War Criminal in High Office

The implications are far-reaching: those in high office whoordered "the intelligence and facts [to be] fixed around the

policy"are responsible for war crimes under national and

international law.

Despite the public outcry, particularly in Britain, there has been novisible shift in the war and national security agendas. Quite the

opposite: both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have been re-

elected to high office under the stamp of parliamentary democracy.The war agenda has remained unscathed, with more than 400 billion

dollars allocated in the US to defense. Moreover, the United Nations isdirectly collaborating with the US-led occupation of Iraq and

Afghanistan, in blatant violation of its own charter.

In fact, most of the major political actors, behind the fake

intelligence dossier, including George W. Bush, Paul Wolfowitz,

Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, John Negroponte,Condoleeza Rice, etc. are still in high office.

Critical Juncture in Our History

We are at a critical juncture in our history. Duly elected war criminalslegitimately occupy positions of authority which enable them to decide

"who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

2/61

This fake legitimacy gives them carte blanche. It enables them toproceed without encroachment to the next phase of the war in the

Middle East.

It also provides them with a mandate to redefine the contours of the

judicial system and the process of law enforcement under the guise ofHomeland Security.

In other words, what we are dealing with is the criminalization of theState and its various institutions including the criminalization of

Justice.

The truth is twisted and turned upside down. State propaganda builds

a consensus within the Executive, the US Congress and the Military.This consensus is then ratified by the Judicial, through a process of

outright legal manipulation.

Putting the War Criminal behind Bars

The evidence detailed in this collection of articles and documents

would be sufficient to put the war criminals behind bars.

Yet in the eyes of a large section of US public opinion, the issue

of fake intelligence is casually dismissed: "it was all for a goodcause", which consisted in fighting the "war on terrorism" and

ensuring the security of Americans.

Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions".

Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as"peace-keeping". In the US, a de facto consensus in favor of warcrimes permeates the US Congress and the Judicial. The

consensus is also endorsed by the corporate establishment.

In turn, supported by the mainstream media, war crimes are no

longer recognized as such. They have been re-categorized as ameans to fighting "evil terrorists" in what is described as a "clash

of civilizations". Western public opinion has thus becomeaccustomed to dismissing the lies and war crimes as

inconsequential.

War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized

into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety andwell-being".

War is given a humanitarian mandate. Media disinformation hasinstilled within the consciousness of Americans, that somehow the lies

are acceptable and that the issue of phony intelligence regarding WMD

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

3/61

can be disregarded.

The use of torture, the existence of concentration camps, extra judicial

assassinations, all of which are happening, are no longer beingconcealed. Quite the opposite they are presented as "acceptable" and

perfectly "legit" in the context of an effective war on "Islamicterrorists".

Under these circumstances, war criminals in high office within theState and the Military no longer need to camouflage their crimes.

Realities are turned upside down. The derogation of civil liberties --in

the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as

a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" and

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" statements, which continue to circulate

profusely in the news chain, are upheld as the basis for anunderstanding of World events.

In other words, the legitimacy of the war criminals is no longer

questioned. A sense of righteousness prevails.

America's global war agenda is firmly established, beyond thepremises of the pre-emptive war doctrine as a means to spreading

democracy and the "free market".

New National Defense Strategy: From "Rogue States" to

"Unstable Nations"

In March 2005, the Pentagon released a major document,

entitled "The National Defense Strategy of the United States ofAmerica" which broadly sketches Washington's agenda for global

military domination.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nds2.pdf

While the NDS follows in the footsteps of the administration's"preemptive" war doctrine as outlined in the Project of the New

American Century (PNAC), it goes much further in setting the

contours of Washington's global military agenda.

Whereas the preemptive war doctrine envisages military actionas a means of "self defense" against countries categorized as

"hostile" to the US, the new Pentagon doctrine has gone one

step further. It now envisages the possibility of militaryintervention against countries, which do not visibly constitute a

threat to the security of the American homeland.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

4/61

It calls for a more "proactive" approach to warfare, beyond theweaker notion of "preemptive" and "defensive" actions, where

military operations are launched against a "declared enemy" witha view to "preserving the peace" and "defending America". The

document explicitly acknowledges America's global military

mandate, beyond regional war theaters. This mandate alsoincludes military operations directed against so-called "failed

states" or "unstable nations", which are not hostile to the US.Needless to say, that in the case of an unstable nation, fake

intelligence on WMD will no longer be required to demonstrate

that a country constitutes a threat. A military operation can belaunched if the country is categorized by Washington as an

"unstable nation. And already, a list of 25 unstable nations orfailed states has been drawn up by the newly created Office of

Reconstruction and Stabilisation .

The 2005 National Defense Strategy (NDS) consists in"enhancing U.S. influence around the world", through increasedtroop deployments and a massive buildup of America's advanced

weapons systems. From a broad military and foreign policy

perspective, it constitutes an imperial design, which supports UScorporate interests Worldwide.

The Next Phase of the War

The existence of fake intelligence to justify US-UK war plans, has notweakened the war agenda. Nordoes it ensure that disinformation will

not used by politicians to justify the next phase of the war.

In fact, fake intelligence has already been created and fed into the

news chain to justify the bombing of Iran which is slated to beimplemented as a joint US-Israeli operation.

Meanwhile, in the US, Britain and Canada, the Homeland Securityapparatus is being further developed, leading to the militarisation of

civilian institutions and the derogation of Constitutional government.

The World is at an important crossroads.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military

adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation,

which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran'snuclear facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a

military roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

5/61

Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel'sparticipation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war

throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in thePalestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with

the proposed aerial attacks.

Reversing the Tide of War

High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of themilitary and the US Congress have been granted the authority to

uphold an illegal war agenda.

One can therefore expect that war criminals in high office will

repress any form of dissent which questions the legitimacy of thewar in Iraq and/or its extension into Iran. In this regard, the anti

terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used in a

cohesive way against the anti-war and civil rights movements.Reversing the tide of war cannot be achieved through a narrowprocess of regime change in America.

It is not sufficient to unseat elected politicians and elect a newgovernment. Those in the seat of political authority are instruments,

they are power brokers, on behalf of the oil companies, the militaryindustrial complex and the Wall Street financial establishment, which

ultimately call the shots on US foreign policy.

Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. What is

required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at nationaland international levels, which challenges not only the legitimacy

of the main military and political actors, but the broad structures

of the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down,the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons

systems) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must

be dismantled.

The corporate sponsors of war and war crimes must also be

targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors,the financial institutions and the corporate media, which has

become an integral part of the war propaganda machine.

Michel Chossudovsky, 22 May 2005.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

6/61

I PHONY INTELLIGENCE ON

IRAQ'S "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION"

20 Lies about the War, Glen Rangwala and Raymond

Whitaker,

Falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain

untruth were used to make the case for war.

More lies are being used in the aftermath

Cheney under pressure to quit over false war evidence,Andrew Buncombe and Marie Woolf,

The White House admitted that the claim that Iraq

was seeking "significant quantities of uranium from

Africa" - based on faked documents provided by theItalian intelligence services - should not have been

included in President Bush's speech two months priorto the war

Where is Iraq War Instigator, Richard Perle? WilliamHughes,

"The shifty Perle, the Mother of all Neocons, alsopredicted, like former Defense Department official,

Ken Adelman, that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be a

'cakewalk!' .."

Phony Intelligence: Like Iraq, CIA also ExaggeratedSoviet Nuclear Threat during Cold War, Jason Leopold,

Two years ago the Central Intelligence Agencyreleased reams of intelligence documents on the

former Soviet Union that had been classified fornearly 30 years. The findings were damning: the CIA

for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated the

nuclear threat the communist country posed to the

world.

The faltering WMD Casus Belli: ''Mobile lies" , Imad

Khadduri,

As the swelter of anger bubbles from the

machination of misinformation that led to thefaltering WMD casus belli for invading Iraq, the

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

7/61

retreat and half-baked excuses of Bush, Blair,Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell further expose the

sharp edge of their deceit

Powell Denies Intelligence Failure In Buildup To War, But

Evidence Doesnt Hold Up, Jason Leopold,

it turns out that a bulk of the intelligence contained

in the reports was just plain wrong, suggesting thateither the intelligence was doctored to make a case

for war or, even worse, that a massive intelligencefailure is rampant inside the CIA and other U.S.

government agencies.

The Iraq War was always based on Shaky Evidence and

Phony Intelligence, Jason Leopold,

Prior to the war, nearly every major media outletwarned, based on reports from the Pentagon, thatIraqs cache of chemical and biological weapons

could be used on U.S. and British troops sent in toIraq to destroy Saddam Husseins regime.

Forged for heat of Iraq battle: Pentagon sent the man atthe heart of a fake documents scandal to Iraq, Solomon

Hughes,

None of these newspapers nor his Congressional

supporters revealed that, seven years previously, theIAEA concluded that documents linked to Hamza

were crude facsimiles made by altering genuine Iraqi

papers.

According to the IAEA: The documents reveal errorsin construction, suggesting poor adaptation of

authentic Iraqi documents.

White House Silenced Experts who Questioned Iraq Intel

Info Six Months before War, Jason Leopold,

Six months before the United States was dead-set on

invading Iraq to rid the country of its allegedweapons of mass destruction, experts in the field of

nuclear science warned officials in the Bush

administration that intelligence reports showing Iraqwas stockpiling chemical and biological weapons was

unreliable and that the country did not pose an

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

8/61

imminent threat to its neighbors in the Middle Eastor the U.S.

But the dissenters were told to keep quiet by high-level administration officials in the White House

because the Bush administration had already decidedthat military force would be used to overthrow the

regime of Iraqs President Saddam Hussein,interviews and documents have revealed

Blair's Mass Deception John Pilger

Tony Blair ordered an unprovoked invasion of another

country on a totally false pretext, and that lies anddeceptions manufactured in London and Washington

caused the deaths of up to 55,000 Iraqis, including 9,600

civilians.Consider for a moment those who have paid the price forBlair's and Bush's actions, who are rarely mentioned in the

current media coverage. Deaths and injury of youngchildren from unexploded British and American cluster

bombs are put at 1,000 a month. The effect of uranium

weapons used by Anglo-American forces - a weapon ofmass destruction - is such that readings taken from Iraqi

tanks destroyed by the British are so high that a BritishArmy survey team wore white, full-body radiation suits,

face masks and gloves. Iraqi children play on and aroundthese tanks. British troops, says the Ministry of Defence,"will have access to biological monitoring".

WeaponsGate: The Coming Downfall of Lying Regimes?

Wayne Madsen,

Historians and scholars, who will look back on what

turned the tide for a supposedly "popular" war

president, will point to the self-described "cabal"whose lies brought about a credibility gap unseen in

the United States since the days of Watergate. Infact, Bush's "Weaponsgate" will be viewed as a more

serious scandal than Watergate because 1) U.S. andallied military personnel were killed and injured as a

result of the caper; 2) Innocent Iraqi civilians,

including women and children, died in a needlessmilitary adventure; and 3) the political effects of the

scandal extended far beyond U.S. shores to the

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

9/61

United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, and othercountries.

Eleventh hour lies mount as war approaches by Larry Chin

So unsavory is the Bush administrations"intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefeller, the top

Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is

calling for the FBI to investigate forged documentsthat the administration has used to justify war on

Iraq.

A growing number of former CIA agents are coming

forward to accuse the Bush administration of cookingthe intelligence books... to support its case for war

with Iraq.

Will Tony Blair be forced to resign? Intelligence Fall-outover Iraq dossier, Richard M. Barnett,

The accusations run in parallel with a growing belief

among some expert observers that Britain and theUnited States had made the decision to invade Iraq

more than a year ago and that everything emanatingfrom both The White House and Downing Street

since then has been designed purely to hide that fact

from the media and to hoodwink the voters on bothsides of the Atlantic.

Wolfowitz Admits Iraq War Planned Two Days After 9/11,

Jason Leopold,

On September13, 2001, during a meeting at Camp

David with President Bush, Rumsfeld and others inthe Bush administration, Wolfowitz said he discussed

with President Bush the prospects of launching an

attack against Iraq, for no apparent reason otherthan a gut feeling Saddam Hussein was involved in

the attacks, and there was a debate about whatplace if any Iraq should have in a counter terrorist

strategy.

Chasing phantoms? The supposed reason why Iraq was

invaded, Glen Rangwala,

General Tommy Franks, the war's commander,

declared: "There is no doubt that the regime of

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

10/61

Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of massdestruction." Tony Blair expressed the same

certainty in his first major press conference of thewar: "We have absolutely no doubt at all that these

weapons of mass destruction exist." He told

Parliament during the debate that led to a vote forwar that the idea that Iraq had disarmed was

"palpably absurd."

Over three weeks into the war, and with most of Iraq

captured by Anglo-American forces, the only reliablesigns of illicit weapons in Iraq are the cluster bombs

that have been dropped from US jets.

The Mirage of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, Imad

Khadduri,

Even then one could discern that the sustained use

of misinformation to support the invasion of Iraqshowed that the President's claims were not based

on any facts. I, having worked with Iraq's nuclearprogram for thirty years, reacted with a series of

articles expounding on the fact that Iraq had ceased

its nuclear weapon program at the start of the 1991war. I refuted the claims and evidence most

famously, or infamously, branded by Secretary ofState Colin Powell to the Security Council in February

2003 in which Powell argued that Iraq hadrejuvenated its nuclear weapon program after theGulf War.

Criminal Case against Blair et al. for Crimes committed in

the Invasion of Iraq, James B. Thring

Therefore a criminal case is being brought by the

Barrister Dr Abdul-Haq Al-Ani against Blair et al. forcrimes committed in the invasion of Iraq. It will

begin with a Judicial Review of the Attorney

Generals refusal to consent, leading to his potentialindictment

Colin Powell's accusations at the UN: Who is behind the

"Terrorist Network" in Northern Iraq, Baghdad or

Washington ? Michel Chossudovsky,

Secretary of State Powell in his February 5 address

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

11/61

to the United Nations Security Council accusedSaddam Hussein of collaborating with Osama bin

Laden's Al Qaeda. Powell accused Baghdad ofsupporting Ansar al-Islam, a "deadly terrorist

network" based in the ethnic Kurd controlled region

of Northern Iraq.

Steve Moore

Saddam Hussein co-operated with the UN weapons

inspectors in Iraq far more than President GeorgeBush is prepared to do. Apparently Hussein had

nothing to hide in the last round of inspections, but

this raises the question: What does Bush have tohide?

Where are all those WMDs that were the pretense for thiswar? Michael Moore speaks out against the War

The real purpose of this war was to say to the rest of

the world, "Don't Mess with Texas - If You Got WhatWe Want, We're Coming to Get It!" This is not the

time for the majority of us who believe in a peaceful

America to be quiet. Make your voices heard.Despite what they have pulled off, it is still our

country.

The Road to Coverup is the Road to Ruin, Letter of Senator

Robert Byrd to President Bush,

These are the President's words. He said that

Saddam Hussein is "seeking a nuclear bomb." Havewe found any evidence to date of this chilling

allegation? No.

II OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND SECRET MEMOS

Document: Secret Downing Street Memorandum; Invasionof Iraq: Secret UK Government Memo Reveals that "the

Intelligence and Facts were fixed"

C [Head of MI-6] reported on his recent talks inWashington. There was a perceptible shift in

attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable.

Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

12/61

action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism andWMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed

around the policy. The NSC had no patience with theUN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material

on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little

discussion in Washington of the aftermath aftermilitary action.

Secret British Memo Shows Bush Tampered with Iraq

Intelligence Juan Cole

[C head of MI-6] Dearlove's report makes it clear

that Bush had already decided absolutely on a war

already the previous month, and that he hadmanaged to give British intelligence the firm

impression that he intended to shape the intelligence

to support such a war.

Why would it even be necessary to turn theintelligence analysts into "weasels" who would have

to tell Bush what he wanted to hear?

It was necessary because the "justification" of the

"conjunction" of Weapons of Mass Destruction andterrorism was virtually non-existent.

Intelligence Fiasco: Text of Memorandum to PresidentBush by former US Intelligence Officials,

We write to express deep concern over the growing

mistrust and cynicism with which many, including

veteran intelligence professionals inside and outsideour movement, regard the intelligence cited by you

and your chief advisers to justify the war againstIraq.

Proof Bush Fixed The Facts, Ray McGovern

Never in our wildest dreams did we think we would

see those words in black and whiteand beneath aSECRET stamp, no less. For three years now, we in

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)have been saying that the CIA and its British

counterpart, MI-6, were ordered by their countries'leaders to "fix facts" to "justify" an unprovoked war

on Iraq. More often than not, we have been greeted

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

13/61

with stares of incredulity.

Blair Planned Iraq War from Start Michael Smith

Inside Downing Street Tony Blair had gathered some

of his senior ministers and advisers for a pivotalmeeting in the build-up to the Iraq war. It was 9am

on July 23, 2002, eight months before the invasion

began and long before the public was told war wasinevitable. The discussion that morning was highly

confidential. As minutes of the proceedings, headedSecret and strictly personal UK eyes only, state:

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies

should be made. It should be shown only to thosewith a genuine need to know its contents.

Secret Document: Report of Britain's Attorney Generalconfirms that the War on Iraq was Illegal

if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to

military action, it is likely to be difficult on the factsto categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The

legal analysis may, however, be affected by the

course of events over the next week or so, eg, thediscussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail

to achieve the adoption of a second resolution wewould need to consider urgently at that stage the

strength of our legal case in the light ofcircumstances at the time.

Official Transcript: Dr David Kay's Testimony to theSenate Armed Services Committee US Senate,

Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong,and I certainly include myself here.

Senator Kennedy knows very directly. SenatorKennedy and I talked on several occasions prior to

the war that my view was that the best evidencethat I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons

of mass destruction.

(...)

It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in myjudgment, and that is most disturbing.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

14/61

(...)

I believe that the effort that has been directed to this

point has been sufficiently intense that it is highlyunlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed

militarized chemical and biological weapons there.

CIA Intelligence Reported Seven Months Before 9/11:

Iraq posed No Threat to US, Jason Leopold,

Seven months before September 11, 2001, CIADirector George Tenet, testified before Congress that

Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States

or to other countries in the Middle East

NSA Memorandum: Dirty Tricks, Text of "Secret" NSA

Memorandum to "mount a surge...directed at UNSC

members (minus US and GBR of course)"

"The Agency [National Security Agency] is mounting

a surge particularly directed at the UN Security

Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR ofcourse)... [the Agency envisages] "a QRC [Quick

Reaction Capability] surge effort to revive/ createefforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon,

Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea"

CIA/MI6 Coverup, Analysis of "Sensitive" document: The

interview with Hussein Kamel, Glen Rangwala, 28 Feb

Kamel's statement casts into new light the claims

made by the Iraqi government that it destroyed itsnon-conventional weapons in the period immediately

after the end of the Gulf War.

This topic remains highly potent, with Hans Blix

declaring that

"[o]ne of three important questions before us today

is how much might remain undeclared and intactfrom before 1991"(statement of 27 January 2003 to

the Security Council).

If Kamel is to be taken as seriously as the UK and US

administrations have previously held him to be, thenhis claim that "[a]ll weapons - biological, chemical,

missile, nuclear were destroyed" should be taken

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

15/61

seriously.

FBI called to investigate forged documents used to justify

war on Iraq: Eleventh Hour Lies mount as Warapproaches, Larry Chin

So unsavory is the Bush administrations

"intelligence" that Senator Jay Rockefeller, the top

Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, iscalling for the FBI to investigate forged documents

that the administration has used to justify war onIraq.

Document: Full text of UN Weapons' Inspector's briefingto the UNSecurity Council, 14 Feb 2003,Executive

Chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix,

Document: Consult original UNSCOM/IAEA "Sensitive"Document

III THE NIGER INTELLIGENCE STING

The Niger Uranium Intelligence Sting , IRNA,

A British professor of theoretical physics suggestedTuesday that the raging controversy over intelligence

claims that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium orefrom Niger is meaningless.

Wolfowitz Instructed White House to Use Iraq/UraniumReference in President's State of the Union Address, Jason

Leopold

A Pentagon committee led by Paul Wolfowitz, the

Deputy Secretary of Defense, advised President Bushto include a reference in his January State of the

Union address about Iraq trying to purchase 500

tons of uranium from Niger to bolster the case forwar in Iraq, despite the fact that the CIA warned

Wolfowitzs committee that the information wasunreliable, according to a CIA intelligence official and

four members of the Senates intelligence committeewho have been investigating the issue.

Niger and Iraq: the War's biggest Lie? Neil McKay,

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

16/61

Some time after the Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger,the Italian intelligence service came into possession

of forged documents claiming Saddam was afterNiger uranium. We now know these documents were

passed to MI6 and then handed by the British to the

office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . Theforgeries were then used by Bush and Blair to scare

the British and Americans and to box both Congressand Parliament into supporting war

, Interview with Italian former SID Defense IntelligenceService agent Rocco Martino

The hoax began one day when a Nigerian (aspublished) Embassy source who had proven to be

reliable on previous occasions and who had contacts

also with the collaborator of a SISMI (Intelligenceand Military Security Service) aide, passed on to mea whole lot of information.

IV THE PLAGIARIZED INTELLIGENCE REPORT

British Intelligence Iraq Dossier Relied on Recycled

Academic Articles, Glen Rangwala, 11 Feb.

A close textual analysis suggests that the UK authors

had little access to first-hand intelligence sourcesand instead based their work on academic papers,

which they selectively distorted. Some of the papersused were considerably out of date. This leads the

reader to wonder about the reliability and veracity of

the Downing Street document

Point by point Refutation of Sec.Colin Powell'sPresentation Concerning Iraq, Glen Rangwala,

Part of Colin Powell's Address to UN was plagiarized. It

was copied and pasted from a website!

The government's carefully coordinated propagandaoffensive took an embarrassing hit after Downing

Street was accused of plagiarism.

WMDs and Osama: Colin Powell's Mea Culpa

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

17/61

Transcript of Colin Powell's Presentation to the UNSecurity Council, 5 Feb 2003

V FAKE BI0CHEMICAL TERROR ALERTS AS APRETEXT FOR WAR

British Government Ordered Shutdown Of Fake Ricin Story

, Propaganda Matrix

The British government has ordered a D-notice

clampdown on details relating to the ricin terror ringstory. Inside sources from the Guardian newspaper

in London have confirmed that the reason the article'The ricin ring that never was,' was removed from its

website was due to a direct order from thegovernment. Several other websites worldwide havealso removed the article.

What's next? Are the government going to create a

Ministry of Truth and employ Winston Smith to

change past newspaper articles and dispose ofunflattering truths down the memory hole?

The Truth About the "Ricin Cell": There was No Ricin andNo Cell, Milan Rai

We know now that there was no ricin, and no "cell".One man experimented with poisons -- showing no

signs of preparing to use them in this country. The"chemical weapon" was not lethal, but merely

irritating to the skin.

Ricin plot: London and Washington used plot to

strengthen Iraq war push , Richard Norton Taylor

War Propaganda Michel Chossudovsky

Military planners in the Pentagon are acutely awareof the central role of war propaganda. Waged fromthe Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a

fear and disinformation campaign (FDC) has been

launched. The blatant distortion of the truth and thesystematic manipulation of all sources of information

is an integral part of war planning

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

18/61

It is the Bush Administration, rather than Baghdad, whichis supporting Al Qaeda: Fabricating an Enemy Michel

Chossudovsky

In the months leadinh up to the March 2003 invasion

of Iraq, the Bush Administration and its indefectibleBritish ally have multiplied the "warnings" of future

Al Qaeda terrorist attacks. The enemy has to appeargenuine: thousands of news stories and editorials

linking Al Qaeda to the Baghdad government were

planted in the news chain.

FBI points finger at the CIA: Terror Alert based on

Fabricated Information

The false terror attack is part of a string of fabricated

stories, released after Colin Powell's address at theUN Security Council on 5 February.

From Afghanistan to Iraq: Transplanting CIA Engineered

Terrorism, Kurt Nimmo

Bush and the CIA want to make darn sure Iraq

becomes and remains the locus of terrorism for theforeseeable future. It has conveniently replaced

Afghanistan as the epicenter of Islamic Evil

Tom Ridge's Mea Culpa: The Code Orange Terror Alerts

were based on Fake Intelligence by Michel Chossudovsky,

An Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7

February 2003, two days after Colin Powell's floppedpresentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass

destruction to the UN Security Council. It wasapplied specifically to galvanize US public opinion in

favor of the invasion of Iraq

After leaving his position at Homeland Security, Tom

Ridge acknowledged that the post 9/11 terror alerts

used as a pretext to invade Iraq were often based on"flimsy evidence" and that he had been pressured by

the CIA to raise the threat level.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

19/61

VI POLITICAL ASSASSINATION:

THE DAVID KELLY AFFAIR

Suicide or Murder? The Dr. David Kelly Affair by Steve

Moore

Dr. David Kelly was found dead on July 18, 2003 just

three days after testifying at the Foreign Affairs

Committee of the British Parliament regarding TonyBlairs fabricated intelligence "spin" concerning Iraqs

nuclear capabilities. The Hutton Commission Reportis a not only a Whitewash, which allows Tony Blair to

demand apologies, it is a cover-up on the causes of

David Kelly's death.

Manipulating Pathologic Evidence: The David Kelly Story:Turning Murder into Suicide by Rowena Thursby

When the slant put on the reporting of a case almostguarantees a suicide "verdict", it is important to

focus on the players who seed this interpretation

David Kelly Death - paramedics query verdict by Anthony

Barnett

The Hutton inquiry found that the scientist caught in

the storm over the 'sexed up' Iraq dossier committed

suicide. Now, for the first time, the experiencedambulance crew who were among the first on thescene tell of their doubts about the decision.

No Inquest for Dr. Kelly by Rowena Thursby

The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, implies that the lack

of "fresh evidence" does not warrant re-opening theinquest. However lack of fresh evidence is not the

real problem here.

Operation Rockingham: A Secret Operation of BritishIntelligence by Rowena Thursby

"Operation Rockingham cherry-picked intelligence. It

received hard data, but had a preordained outcomein mind. It only put forward a small percentage of

the facts when most were ambiguous or noted noWMD... It became part of an effort to maintain a

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

20/61

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

21/61

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics andInternational Development at the University of Ottawa

and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization.He is the author of a forthcoming book entitled:America's

"War on Terrorism"

This E-Report is published as a service to our Global

Research members. We kindly request Readers of thisSpecial Report to either become A Member of Global

Research , or to make a modest contribution in the form of a

donation.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the above articles are the sole responsibility ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on

Globalization.

Email this article to a friend

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants

permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or anyportions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not

modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of

the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must bedisplayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including

commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected]

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has notalways been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such

material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort toadvance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material

on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest

in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrightedmaterial for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the

copyright owner.

To express your opinion on on or more of the articles in this collection, join the

discussion at Global Research's News and Discussion Forum

For media inquiries: [email protected]

Copyright CENTRE FOR RESEARCH ON GLOBALIZATION. Copyright of individual

articles belongs to the authors 2005.

Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering an Attack on Iran

Part II The Military Road Map

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, August 13, 2010

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

22/61

Email this article to a friend

Print this article

0diggs

digg

To consult Part I of this essay click below

Preparing for World War III, Targeting IranPart I: Global Warfare

- by Michel Chossudovsky - 2010-08-01

The stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iranstarted in the immediate wake of the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq. From the outset,

these war plans were led by the US, in liaison with NATO and Israel.

Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria asthe next stage of the road map to war. US military sources intimated that an aerialattack on Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the US "shock andawe" bombing raids on Iraq in March 2003:

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack onthe Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003air campaign against Iraq.(See Globalsecurity )

"Theater Iran Near Term"

Code named by US military planners as TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term",simulations of an attack on Iran were initiated in May 2003 "when modelers andintelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran." ( (William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006).

The scenarios identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock andAwe" Blitzkrieg:

"The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "Theater Iran Near Term," was coupled witha mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranianmissile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game

around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw upa global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass destruction.All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations"against Iran that military sources confirm now [April 2006] exists in draft form.

... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have beenexamining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including allaspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

23/61

through postwar stability operations after regime change." (William Arkin,Washington Post, 16 April 2006)

Different "theater scenarios" for an all out attack on Iran had been contemplated: "TheUS army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four yearsbuilding bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the newhead of US Central Command, has inherited computerized plans under the nameTIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term)." (New Statesman, February 19, 2007)

In 2004, drawing upon the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President DickCheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" of a large scalemilitary operation directed against Iran "to be employed in response to another 9/11-typeterrorist attack on the United States" on the presumption that the government in Tehranwould be behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclearweapons against a non-nuclear state:

"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional

and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategictargets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program developmentsites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not betaken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case ofIraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act ofterrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officersinvolved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what theyare doingthat Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attackbut no oneis prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." (Philip Giraldi, DeepBackground,The American Conservative August 2005)

The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"

The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader process of military planning and sequencing of military operations. Already under the Clintonadministration, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theaterplans" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle East oil was the stated strategicobjective:

"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the President'sNational Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's National Military Strategy(NMS) form the foundation of the United States Central Command's theaterstrategy. The NSS directs implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the

rogue states of Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests,to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual containment isdesigned to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending oneither Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protectthe United States' vital interest in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Alliedaccess to Gulf oil." (USCENTCOM,http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy,

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

24/61

link no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9)

The war on Iran was viewed as part of a succession of military operations. According to(former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon's military road-mapconsisted of a sequence of countries: "[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]... a totalof seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia andSudan." In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:

"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the seniormilitary staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for goingagainst Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of afive-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries,beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. (SeeSecret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

The Role of Israel

There has been much debate regarding the role of Israel in initiating an attack againstIran.

Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. It does not have aseparate and distinct military agenda.

Israel is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against Iranformulated in 2006 by US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). In the context of largescale military operations, an uncoordinated unilateral military action by one coalitionpartner, namely Israel, is from a military and strategic point almost an impossibility.Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a "green light"from Washington.

An attack by Israel could, however, be used as "the trigger mechanism" which wouldunleash an all out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran directed against Israel.

In this regard, there are indications that Washington might envisage the option of aninitial (US backed) attack by Israel rather than an outright US-led military operationdirected against Iran. The Israeli attack --although led in close liaison with the Pentagonand NATO-- would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel Aviv. Itwould then be used by Washington to justify, in the eyes of World opinion, a militaryintervention of the US and NATO with a view to "defending Israel", rather than attackingIran. Under existing military cooperation agreements, both the US and NATO would be"obligated" to "defend Israel" against Iran and Syria.

It is worth noting, in this regard, that at the outset of Bush's second term, (former) VicePresident Dick Cheney hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of thelist" of the "rogue enemies" of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing thebombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure onthem "to do it" (See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran, GlobalResearch, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

25/61

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked...Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction ofIsrael, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worryabout cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (Dick Cheney, quoted from anMSNBC Interview, January 2005)

Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser ZbigniewBrzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheneywants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it'snuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallelstatement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and infact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement forthe Israelis to do it."

What we are dealing with is a joint US-NATO-Israel military operation to bomb Iran,

which has been in the active planning stage since 2004. Officials in the DefenseDepartment, under Bush and Obama, have been working assiduously with their Israelimilitary and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran. Inpractical military terms, any action by Israel would have to be planned and coordinated atthe highest levels of the US led coalition.

An attack by Israel would also require coordinated US-NATO logistical support,particularly with regard to Israel's air defense system, which since January 2009 is fullyintegrated into that of the US and NATO. (See Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually LargeU.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel: Are the US and Israel Planning a Broader Middle EastWar? Global Research, January 11,2009)

Israel's X band radar system established in early 2009 with US technical support has"integrate[d] Israels missile defenses with the U.S. global missile [Space-based]detection network, which includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, PersianGulf and Red Sea, and land-based Patriot radars and interceptors." (Defense Talk.com,January 6, 2009,)

What this means is that Washington ultimately calls the shots. The US rather than Israelcontrols the air defense system: '''This is and will remain a U.S. radar system,' Pentagonspokesman Geoff Morrell said. 'So this is not something we are giving or selling to theIsraelis and it is something that will likely require U.S. personnel on-site to operate.'"(Quoted in Israel National News, January 9, 2009).

The US military oversees Israel's Air Defense system, which is integrated into thePentagon's global system. In other words, Israel cannot launch a war against Iran withoutWashington's consent. Hence the importance of the so-called "Green Light" legislation inthe US Congress sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, whichexplicitly supports an Israeli attakc on Iran:

"The measure, introduced by Texas Republican Louie Gohmert and 46 of hiscolleagues, endorses Israels use of all means necessary against Iran including

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

26/61

the use of military force. ... Weve got to get this done. We need to show oursupport for Israel. We need to quit playing games with this critical ally in such adifficult area. (See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro Warns of Imminent NuclearWar; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iran-Hezbollah ConfrontationBuilds On, Global Research, August 10, 2010)

In practice, the proposed legislation is a "Green Light" to the White House and thePentagon rather than to Israel. It constitutes a rubber stamp to a US sponsored war onIran which uses Israel as a convenient military launch pad. It also serves as a justificationto wage war with a view to defending Israel.

In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext to wage war, in response to allegedHamas or Hezbollah attacks and/or the triggering of hostilities on the border of Israelwith Lebanon. What is crucial to understand is that a minor "incident" could be used as a pretext to spark off a major military operation against Iran.

Known to US military planners, Israel (rather than the USA) would be the first target of

military retaliation by Iran. Broadly speaking, Israelis would be the victims of themachinations of both Washington and their own government. It is, in this regard,absolutely crucial that Israelis forcefully oppose any action by the Netanyahu governmentto attack Iran.

Global Warfare: The Role of US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)

Global military operations are coordinated out of US Strategic Command Headquarters(USSTRATCOM) at the Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in liaison with the regionalcommands of the unified combatant commands (e.g.. US Central Command in Florida,which is responsible for the Middle East-Central Asian region, See map below) as well as

coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and the Diego Garcia militarybase in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and decision making at a country level byindividual allies of US-NATO as well as "partner nations" is integrated into a globalmilitary design including the weaponization of space.

Under its new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a globalstrike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, it isslated to play the role of "a global integrator charged with the missions of SpaceOperations; Information Operations; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command &Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike; and StrategicDeterrence.... "

USSTRATCOM's responsibilities include: "leading, planning, & executing strategicdeterrence operations" at a global level, "synchronizing global missile defense plans andoperations", "synchronizing regional combat plans", etc. USSTRATCOM is the leadagency in the coordination of modern warfare.

In January 2005, at the outset of the military deployment and build-up directed againstIran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command for integrationand synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating weapons of mass destruction."

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

27/61

(Michel Chossudovsky,Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006).

What this means is that the coordination of a large scale attack on Iran, including thevarious scenarios of escalation in and beyond the broader Middle East Central Asianregion would be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.

Map: US Central Command's Area of Jurisdiction

Tactical Nuclear Weapons directed against Iran

Confirmed by military documents as well as official statements, both the US and Israelcontemplate the use of nuclear weapons directed against Iran. In 2006, U.S. StrategicCommand (USSTRATCOM) announced it had achieved an operational capability for

rapidly striking targets around the globe using nuclear or conventional weapons. Thisannouncement was made after the conduct of military simulations pertaining to a US lednuclear attack against a fictional country. (David Ruppe, Preemptive Nuclear War in aState of Readiness: U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability, Global SecurityNewswire, December 2, 2005)

Continuity in relation to the Bush-Cheney era: President Obama has largely endorsed thedoctrine of pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons formulated by the previousadministration. Under the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, the Obama administrationconfirmed "that it is reserving the right to use nuclear weapons against Iran" for its non-compliance with US demands regarding its alleged (nonexistent) nuclear weapons

program. (U.S. Nuclear Option on Iran Linked to Israeli Attack Threat - IPS ipsnews.net,April 23, 2010). The Obama administration has also intimated that it would use nukes inthe case of an Iranian response to an Israeli attack on Iran. (Ibid). Israel has also drawn upits own "secret plans" to bomb Iran with tactical nuclear weapons:

"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer beenough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Severalhave been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

28/61

tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled outand if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said."(Revealed:Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran - Times Online, January 7, 2007)

Obama's statements on the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea areconsistent with post 9/11 US nuclear weapons doctrine, which allows for the use oftactical nuclear weapons in the conventional war theater.

Through a propaganda campaign which has enlisted the support of "authoritative" nuclearscientists, mini-nukes are upheld as an instrument of peace, namely a means to combating"Islamic terrorism" and instating Western style "democracy" in Iran. The low-yield nukeshave been cleared for "battlefield use". They are slated to be used against Iran and Syriain the next stage of America's "war on Terrorism" alongside conventional weapons.

"Administration officials argue that low-yield nuclear weapons are needed as acredible deterrent against rogue states. [Iran, Syria, North Korea] Their logic isthat existing nuclear weapons are too destructive to be used except in a full-scale

nuclear war. Potential enemies realize this, thus they do not consider the threat ofnuclear retaliation to be credible. However, low-yield nuclear weapons are lessdestructive, thus might conceivably be used. That would make them moreeffective as a deterrent." (Opponents Surprised By Elimination of Nuke ResearchFunds Defense News November 29, 2004)

The preferred nuclear weapon to be used against Iran are tactical nuclear weapons (Madein America), namely bunker buster bombs with nuclear warheads (e.g. B61.11), with anexplosive capacity between one third to six times a Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 is the"nuclear version" of the "conventional"BLU 113. or Guided Bomb UnitGBU-28. It canbe delivered in much same way as the conventional bunker buster bomb. (See MichelChossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html, see alsohttp://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris) . While the US does notcontemplate the use of strategic thermonuclear weapons against Iran, Israel's nucleararsenal is largely composed of thermonuclear bombs which are deployed and could beused in a war with Iran. Under Israel's Jericho III missile system with a range between 4,800 km to 6,500 km, all Iran would be within reach.

Conventional bunker buster Guided Bomb Unit GBU-27

B61 bunker buster bomb

Radiactive Fallout

The issue of radioactive fallout and contamination, while casually dismissed by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, potentially affecting a large area of the

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

29/61

broader Middle East (including Israel) and Central Asian region.

In an utterly twisted logic, nuclear weapons are presented as a means to building peaceand preventing "collateral damage". Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons are a threat toglobal security, whereas those of the US and Israel are instruments of peace" harmless tothe surrounding civilian population".

"The Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) Slated to be Used against Iran

Of military significance within the US conventional weapons arsenal is the 21,500-pound"monster weapon" nicknamed the "mother of all bombs" The GBU-43/B or MassiveOrdnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB) was categorized "as the most powerful non-nuclearweapon ever designed" with the the largest yield in the US conventional arsenal. TheMOAB was tested in early March 2003 before being deployed to the Iraq war theater.According to US military sources, The Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised the governmentof Saddam Hussein prior to launching the 2003 that the "mother of all bombs" was to beused against Iraq. (There were unconfirmed reports that it had been used in Iraq).

The US Department of Defence has confirmed in October 2009 that it intends to use the"Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB) against Iran. The MOAB is said to be "ideally suited tohit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran" (Jonathan Karl, Is theU.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran? ABC News, October 9, 2009). The truth of the matter isthat the MOAB, given its explosive capacity, would result in extremely large civiliancasualties. It is a conventional "killing machine" with a nuclear type mushroom cloud.

The procurement of four MOABs was commissioned in October 2009 at the hefty cost of$58.4 million, ($14.6 million for each bomb). This amount includes the costs ofdevelopment and testing as well as integration of the MOAB bombs onto B-2 stealth

bombers.(Ibid). This procurement is directly linked to war preparations in relation to Iran.The notification was contained in a 93-page "reprogramming memo" which included thefollowing instructions:

"The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strikehard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments . The MOP [Mother ofAll Bombs] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [UrgentOperational Need]." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command(which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has

responsibility over Iran)." (ABC News, op cit, emphasis added). To consult thereprogramming request (pdf) click here

The Pentagon is planning on a process of extensive destruction of Iran's infrastructureand mass civilian casualties through the combined use of tactical nukes and monsterconventional mushroom cloud bombs, including the MOAB and the larger GBU-57A/Bor Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), which surpasses the MOAB in terms ofexplosive capacity.

The MOP is described as "a powerful new bomb aimed squarely at the underground

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

30/61

nuclear facilities of Iran and North Korea. The gargantuan bomblonger than 11 personsstanding shoulder-to-shoulder [see image below] or more than 20 feet base to nose" (SeeEdwin Black, "Super Bunker-Buster Bombs Fast-Tracked for Possible Use Against Iranand North Korea Nuclear Programs", Cutting Edge, September 21 2009)

These are WMDs in the true sense of the word. The not so hidden objective of theMOAB and MOP, including the American nickname used to casually describe theMOAB ("mother of all bombs'), is "mass destruction" and mass civilian casualties with aview to instilling fear and despair.

"Mother of All Bombs" (MOAB)

GBU-57A/B Mass Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)

MOAB: screen shots of test: explosion and mushroom cloud

State of the Art Weaponry: "War Made Possible Through New Technologies"

The process of US military decision making in relation to Iran is supported by Star Wars,the militarization of outer space and the revolution in communications and informationsystems. Given the advances in military technology and the development of new weaponssystems, an attack on Iran could be significantly different in terms of the mix of weaponssystems, when compared to the March 2003 Blitzkrieg launched against Iraq. The Iranoperation is slated to use the most advanced weapons systems in support of its aerialattacks. In all likelihood, new weapons systems will be tested.

The 2000 Project of the New American Century (PNAC) document entitled RebuildingAmerican Defenses, outlined the mandate of the US military in terms of large scaletheater wars, to be waged simultaneously in different regions of the World:

"Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars".

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

31/61

This formulation is tantamount to a global war of conquest by a single imperialsuperpower. The PNAC document also called for the transformation of U.S. forces toexploit the revolution in military affairs", namely the implementation of "war made possible through new technologies". (See Project for a New American Century,Rebuilding Americas Defenses Washington DC, September 2000, pdf). The latter

consists in developing and perfecting a state of the artglobal killing machine based on anarsenal of sophisticated new weaponry, which would eventually replace the existingparadigms.

"Thus, it can be foreseen that the process of transformation will in fact be a two-stage process: first of transition, then of more thoroughgoing transformation.The breakpoint will come when a preponderance of new weapons systems

begins to enter service, perhaps when, for example, unmanned aerial vehiclesbegin to be as numerous as manned aircraft. In this regard, the Pentagon should bevery wary of making large investments in new programs tanks, planes, aircraftcarriers, for example that would commit U.S. forces to current paradigms ofwarfare for many decades to come. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The war on Iran could indeed mark this crucial breakpoint, with new space-basedweapons systems being applied with a view to disabling an enemy which has significantconventional military capabilities including more than half a million ground forces.

Electromagnetic Weapons

Electromagnetic weapons could be used to destabilize Iran's communications systems,disable electric power generation, undermine and destabilize command and control,government infrastructure, transportation, energy, etc. Within the same family ofweapons, environmental modifications techniques (ENMOD) (weather warfare)developed under the HAARP programme could also be applied. (See MichelChossudovsky,"Owning the Weather" for Military Use,Global Research, September 27,2004). These weapons systems are fully operational. In this context, te US Air Forcedocument AF 2025 explicitly acknowledgedthe military applications of weathermodification technologies:

"Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international securityand could be done unilaterally... It could have offensive and defensiveapplications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generateprecipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, improvecommunications through ionospheric modification (the use of ionosphericmirrors), and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set

of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degradedcapability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power." (AirForce 2025 Final Report, See also US Air Force: Weather as a Force Multiplier:Owning the Weather in 2025, AF2025 v3c15-1 | Weather as a Force Multiplier:Owning... | (Ch 1) at www.fas.org).

Electromagnetic radiation enabling "remote health impairment" might also be envisagedin the war theater. (See Mojmir Babacek, Electromagnetic and Informational Weapons:,

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

32/61

Global Research, August 6, 2004). In turn, new uses of biological weapons by the USmilitary might also be envisaged as suggested by the PNAC: "[A]dvanced forms ofbiological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfarefrom the realm of terror to a politically useful tool." (PNAC, op cit., p. 60).

Iran's Military Capabilities: Medium and Long Range Missiles

Iran has advanced military capabilities, including medium and long range missilescapable of reaching targets in Israel and the Gulf States. Hence the emphasis by the US-NATO Israel alliance on the use of nuclear weapons, which are slated to be used eitherpr-emptively or in response to an Iranian retaliatory missile attack.

Range of Iran's Shahab Missiles. Copyright Washington Post

In November 2006, Iran tests of surface missiles 2 were marked by precise planning in acarefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by

Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which theWest had not known them to possess." (See Michel Chossudovsky, Iran's "Power ofDeterrence" Global Research, November 5, 2006) Israel acknowledged that "the Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach"(Debka, November 5, 2006)

According to Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel's anti-ballistic missile program, "theintensity of the military exercise was unprecedented... It was meant to make animpression -- and it made an impression." (www.cnsnews.com 3 November 2006)

The 2006 exercises, while creating a political stir in the US and Israel, did not in any waymodify US-NATO-Israeli resolve to wage on Iran.

Tehran has confirmed in several statements that it will respond if it is attacked. Israelwould be the immediate object of Iranian missile attacks as confirmed by the Iraniangovernment. The issue of Israel's air defense system is therefore crucial. US and alliedmilitary facilities in the Gulf states, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iraq couldalso be targeted by Iran.

Iran's Ground Forces

While Iran is encircled by US and allied military bases, the Islamic Republic has

significant military capabilities. (See maps below) What is important to acknowledge isthe sheer size of Iranian forces in terms of personnel (army, navy, air force) whencompared to US and NATO forces serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Confronted with a well organized insurgency, coalition forces are already overstretchedin both Afghanistan and Iraq. Would these forces be able to cope if Iranian ground forceswere to enter the existing battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan? The potential of theResistance movement to US and allied occupation would inevitably be affected.

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

33/61

Iranian ground forces are of the order of 700,000 of which 130,000 are professionalsoldiers, 220,000 are conscripts and 350,000 are reservists. (See Islamic Republic of IranArmy - Wikipedia). There are 18,000 personnel in Iran's Navy and 52,000 in the airforce. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, "the RevolutionaryGuards has an estimated 125,000 personnel in five branches: Its own Navy, Air Force,

and Ground Forces; and the Quds Force (Special Forces)." According to the CISS, Iran'sBasij paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Revolutionary Guards "has anestimated 90,000 active-duty full-time uniformed members, 300,000 reservists, and atotal of 11 million men that can be mobilized if need be" (Armed Forces of the IslamicRepublic of Iran - Wikipedia), In other words, Iran can mobilize up to half a millionregular troops and several million militia. Its Quds special forces are already operatinginside Iraq.

US Military and Allied Facilties Surrounding Iran

For several years now Iran has been conducting its own war drills and exercises. Whileits Air force has weaknesses, its intermediate and long-range missiles are fullyoperational. Iran's military is in a state of readiness. Iranian troop concentrations are

8/8/2019 WWW III Imminent

34/61

currently within a few kilometers of the Iraqi and Afghan borders, and within proximityof Kuwait. The Iranian Navy is deployed in the Persian Gulf within proximity of US andallied military facilities in the United Arab Emirates.

It is worth noting that in response to Iran's military build-up, the US has been transferring

large amounts of weapons to its non-NATO allies in the Persian Gulf including Kuwaitand Saudi Arabia.

While Iran's advanced weapons do not measure up to those of the US and NATO, Iranianforces would be in a position to inflict substantial losses to coalition forces in aconventional war theater, on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Iranian ground troops andtanks in D