Cold War Shivers

by **rain** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:11 am

"Cold War Shivers": War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia by Michel Chossudovsky October 6, 2006 Background The entire Middle East Central Asian region is on a war footing. US-NATO naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean. (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, October 2006). The naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with the participation of Canada. Both the USS Enterprise and Eisenhower Strike groups have been dispatched to the Persian Gulf in a a massive display of US military might. ...... The militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean (on land and sea) is under the control of several NATO member countries including France, Germany and Turkey. This military build-up is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission (UNIFIL) pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context, the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of the broader US sponsored military road-map, which targets Syria. In September, Germany dispatched a fleet of eight ships including 2 frigates, with up to 2,400 personnel aboard. The German navy will be in charge of the multinational naval force, which has, under its official UNIFIL mandate "to prevent arms shipments to Hezbollah". The German naval force will operate out of the Cyprus port of Limassol, located within less than 100 km. from the Lebanon-Syria coastline. The Cyprus based multinational naval force could eventually be used to encroach on maritime trade with Syria. In early October, Turkey dispatched several warships, which will join the multinational naval force under German command. While Turkey is formally part of the UN international force (UNIFIL), it is also a close military ally of Israel. Greek, Bulgarian and Italian warships have also been dispatched to the Lebanese coast. France has dispatched armored vehicle and infantry units. (Chars Leclerc see below). The nature of the military equiipment and weapons systems being deployed has little to do with "peace-keeping". Moreover, NATO established a close military partnership with Israel in 2005, which in practice binds NATO member countries involved in Lebanon to fully cooperate with Israel. French Armored Vehicles (Chars Leclerc) en route to Lebanon. The Leclerc armored vehicles were used in Kosovo in 1999 The naval buildup has been coordinated with the planned air attacks on Iran. The latter were outlined in mid-2004, following the formulation of CONCEPT PLAN CONPLAN 8022 (early 2004). The air attacks on Iran would involve a "shock and awe" blitzkrieg on a scale similar to the 2003 air war on Iraq. In November 2004, US Strategic Command conducted a major exercise of a "global strike plan" entitled "Global Lightening". The latter involved a simulated attack using both conventional and nuclear weapons against a "fictitious enemy" [Iran]. Following the "Global Lightening" exercise, US Strategic Command declared an advanced state of readiness. CONPLAN is operational implementation of the Global Strike. It is described as "an actual plan that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their submarines and bombers,' CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.' 'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran, North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said. 'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese economic News Wire, op cit) The use of tactical nuclear weapons is contemplated under CONPLAN 8022 alongside conventional weapons, as part of the Bush administration's preemptive war doctrine. In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued. While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022. (For further details on the US nuclear option, see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, January 2006, The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War, February 2006, Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust , February 2006) War Preparations Iran is in an advanced stage of readiness in the eventuality of a US attack. In response to the US-NATO sponsored military build-up, Iran has conducted extensive war games throughout its territory. (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, 21 August 2006) Moreover, barely acknowledged by the Western media, both China and Russia have conducted war games in Central Asia, in collaboration with their coalition partners. In late September, Russia conducted air war exercises over a large part of its territory, extending from the Volga to the frontiers of Alaska and North America. These war games prompted the scrambling of NORAD fighter planes. Military exercises involving the participation of Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan under the Collective Security Treaty Organization, (CSTO) were launched in August. These war games, officially described as part of a " counter terrorism program", were held barely a week before those conducted by the Iranian military. (See Michel Chossudovsky, 24 August 2006) Broadly coinciding with both the Iranian and CSTO military exercises, China and Kazakhstan also conducted military exercises in August under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Iran is an observer member in the SCO. (For Timeline of War Games see Table below) .... While there a number of factors which may prevent this war from occurring including divisions within the US adminstration and military, behind the scenes negotiations with China, Russia, Iran, etc., the risk of an extended Middle East -Central Asian war must be addressed. The devastation and loss of life which could result from this proposed military agenda would be incalculable, particularly if the conflict escalates to the broader region. The possible use of tactical nuclear weapons by the US, ironically in retalation for Iran's non-compliance to suspend uranium enrichment (in its civilian nuclear energy program) must also be the addressed. The economic disruptions resulting from a broader Middle East war would not be limited to spiraling oil prices, following a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. The energy crisis would immediately backlash on freight prices and costs of production in virtually all sectors of economic activity. It would also contribute to disrupting financial markets Worldwide. Moreover, if China were in any ways involved in the conflict, the large scale commodity trade in manufactured products out of China, which supplies Western markets with vast array of consumer goods, would also be disrupted ...... What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already defined the contours of a police State. It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war. War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a humanitarian mandate. ..... There is opposition within the political establishment in the US as well as within the ranks of the Armed Forces. While this opposition does not necessarily question to overall direction of US foreign policy, it is firmly opposed to military adventurism, including the use of nuclear weapons. These voices within the institutions of the State, the Military and the business establishment are important because they can be usefully channeled to discredit and ultimately dismantle the "war on terrorism" consensus. The broadest possible alliance of political and social forces is, therefore, required to prevent a military adventure which in a very real sense threatens the future of humanity ...... Whereas France and Germany are broadly supportive of the US led war, there are strong voices in both countries as well as within the European Union, which firmly oppose the US led military agenda, both at the grassroots level as well within the political system itself. It is essential that the commitments made by European heads of government and heads of State to Washington be cancelled or nullified, through pressure exerted at the appropriate political levels. This applies, in particular, to the unbending support of the Bush administration, expressed by President Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Angela Merkel. The weakening of the system of alliances which commits Western Europe to supporting the Anglo-American military axis, could indeed contribute to reversing the tide. Washington would hesitate to wage a war on Iran without the support of France and Germany ..... The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda. Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. Several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the recent foiled "liquid bomb attack". There is evidence that the several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. (e.g Bali 2002). The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government. Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism" which constitutes the main justification for waging war in the Middle East. Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards. <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20061006&articleId=3407">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...cleId=3407</a> Chossudovsky alludes to '...weeks and months..' I'm more inclined to think that it's down to a matter of days

Cold War Shivers

Cold War Shivers

Who is online