WORLD

Military build-up by U.S. and NATO may presage new conflict in the Middle East.

By Thom White

Reader Comments

March 24, 2007 -- In 2005, after rumors began circulating of a planned U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, President George W. Bush responded that, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous." He added, "Having said that, all options are on the table." Observers noted that Mr. Bush was making a veiled reference to the option of a U.S. military assault on Iran.

In a February 24, 2007, interview, U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney said that the Bush Administration would continue to try to "persuade" Iran to halt their nuclear enrichment program, but repeated the line that "all options are on the table," for the U.S. to prevent Iran from have enriched uranium. Most public statements from the White House and Pentagon have denied a plan of attack, but reports on U.S. and coalition troop deployments in the past few months point toward new and wider "U.S. military action."

In October 2006, the Centre for Research on Globalization (www.globalresearch.ca), published an extensive report by Mahdi Darius Nazemroya, a researcher based in Ottawa, that details the "ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition forces in the Middle East" and gave convincing evidence that the U.S.A., Israel, and possibly NATO, plan to launch a military campaign against Iran and Syria.

The report made a strong connection between the multiple U.S. aircraft carrier groups sent to the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea, and NATO's naval build-up in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, and so paints the picture of a new "war of choice" in the Middle East by President George W. Bush, this time with open military support and coordination from Israel and the great European alliance, NATO.

In media outlets outside the U.S. news blackout zone, the Bush Administration's march to war has been well-documented. The German weekly Der Spiegel noted in December 2005 that, "Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has recently done the past year." The Telegraph (UK)'s Philip Sherwell then reported in February 2006 that the U.S. is drawing up plans to attack nuclear sites in Iran: "Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a 'last resort' to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb."

Some European media outlets have indicated potential Turkish involvement in the planned air strikes on Iran. The German news agency DDP reported that when CIA director Porter Goss visited Ankara and met with Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Dec. 12, 2005, he asked Erdogan "to provide political and logistical support for air strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets" as well as for special "cooperation" with Turkish government intelligence agencies.

In February 2007, The Sunday Herald (UK) reported that, "Senior commanders have produced contingency plans for a series of attacks on the Iranian homeland ... With three carrier groups soon to be deployed in the Gulf … [the U.S. military] has the capacity to launch air strikes or even make limited amphibious landings … From its bases in Bulgaria and the former Soviet central Asian republics, it can employ air power to destroy suspected targets either by using stealth bombers or pre-programmed cruise missiles."

The writer, Trevor Royle, then asked the pivotal question at hand: "Is Bush going for broke by laying plans to attack Iran or is he involved in a dangerous game of brinksmanship?"

MILITARY BUILD-UP IN THE PERSIAN GULF

The U.S. Navy flagship U.S.S. Enterprise, the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier ever built, led the U.S. armada's mission in the Persian Gulf in 2006. The stated mission of the Enterprise Strike Group was "to conduct naval security operations and aerial missions in the region" and ostensibly to help provide air support for US-Coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

GlobalResearch reported in October 2006 that, "the Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, received orders to deploy to the Middle East" to replace the U.S.S. Enterprise in its mission. The flagship U.S.S. Eisenhower is another nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. The U.S.S. John C. Stennis, a third nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, arrived in the region in February 2007 to aid the Eisenhower Strike Group. The U.S. will station one carrier strike group in the Persian Gulf and the other further east in the Gulf of Oman.

According to GlobalResearch, another U.S. group of assault warships, Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5), set off from the naval station in San Diego, Calif., in September 2006, with its final destination being the Persian Gulf.

The flagship for ESG 5 is the assault ship U.S.S. Boxer. The strike group includes a "dock landing vessel" and a couple destroyers hauling U.S. guided missiles.

The Navy Times reported in September 2006 that this strike group has "over 6,000 U.S. Marines and Navy personnel," approximately 4,000 sailors and 2,200 Marines from the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego. They are reported to have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and "possibly" in Anglo-American occupied Iraq for half a year. One U.S. Coast Guard vessel, and a "Marine air wing of 38 helicopters also is on board and traveling to the Persian Gulf."

Before ESG 5 reached the coast waters of Iran, they made a stop in Hawaii to do some "anti-submarine drills and operations" in the Pacific Ocean. Is this in preparation against Iran's modernized submarine force?

GlobalResearch notes that the U.S. naval units involved in the deployment include "minesweepers and mine-hunters [that] have absolutely no use in landlocked Afghanistan and are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor and ports totally controlled by the Anglo-American alliance."

ESG 5 will include a Seattle-based Coast Guard unit, and a Canadian navy frigate. The U.S. Coast Guard's involvement in the attack on Iran is one of many new operations in which Coast Guard units are being sent off to fight foreign wars.

GlobalResearch reports, "The U.S. Coast Guard is beginning to see more use and deployment with the U.S. Navy ... The U.S. Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction and mandate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but at the Department of Defense's request, the Coast Guard can operate under military missions at sea."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported in September 2006 that the Pentagon appears to value the Coast Guard because it can "enter ports that other warships can not" and because the organization is specialized in maritime search and rescue operations.

Lee Alexander, commander of the Coast Guard boat, the U.S.S. Midgett, says, "What we bring to the strike group [ESG 5] is the ability to conduct intercepts and maritime security operations." He added, "The tools used to fight crime and save lives at home [in the U.S.A.] are valuable in the war zone."

GlobalResearch reported that "... it is predicted by military analysts that there will definitely be U.S. vessels that will be destroyed and heavily damaged in the Persian Gulf by the Iranian Armed Forces in the event of a conflict..."

LONG-TERM PREPARATIONS FOR ATTACK

When it comes to full-scale assaults on a nation of millions of people who already know you are planning to attack them, the attacker must often spend years getting ready.

The botched U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq was officially announced on television on March 19, 2003, but the infamous "Downing Street Memo," released in May 2005 by The Times (UK), confirms that U.K. PM Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush were already decided on invading Iraq in 2002, almost a year before the full assault.

GlobalResearch's report gave another good example of planning, with details about the D-Day Invasion, a military operation not revealed publicly to Americans until June 1944:

"... People do not always realize that a war is never planned, executed or even anticipated in a matter of weeks. Military operations take months and even years to prepare. A classical example is Operation Overlord (popularly identified as "D-Day"), which resulted in the Battle of Normandy and the invasion of France. Operation Overlord took place on June 6, 1944, but the preparations for the military operation took eighteen months, "officially," to set the stage for the invasion of the French coast. It was during a meeting in Casablanca, Morocco in January 1943, that the U.S. President, F.D. Roosevelt, and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, outlined a strategy to invade Normandy."

IRAN'S MILITARY

What would be the Iranian military opposition that U.S. forces would face? GlobalResearch asserts that Iran has been upgrading its military and technology in earnest since the NATO-US bombing raids on Serbia in 1999: "Iranian Armed Forces are characterized by well-structured military organization, with advanced military capabilities," when compared with recent U.S.-NATO adversaries such as Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Iran's navy is divided between units within the Iranian Regular Armed Forces and the naval branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. According to GlobalResearch: "Iran has a submarine fleet of Iranian and Russian-manufactured submarines, a hovercraft fleet that was once the largest in the world, ROVs (remotely operated vehicles) … helicopter squadrons, minesweepers, a large arsenal of anti-ship missiles … and mini-submarines manufactured domestically in Iran."

GlobalResearch reports that during "the August 2006 Iranian war games and exercises, the Iranian military displayed the latest 'Patrol Torpedo (PT)' boats which are small naval vessels that have been used effectively to attack larger warships." These quick, maneuverable boats have the capability to launch powerful missiles with a range of over 20 kilometers. During these same war games, Iran also tested a series of "submarine-to-surface" anti-ship missiles.

GlobalResearch says, "The anti-ship missile is designed to destroy large submarines" and is said to be "too fast for most vessels to escape." In Iran's anti-ship missile arsenal are "modified Russian and Chinese 'Silkworms' and 'Sunburns'."

Iran tested an array of new torpedoes in April 2006, and test-fired the Shahab missiles in November 2006. According to the Associated Press (2/20/07), "The moves [by Iran] have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war …" Early warning systems will be essential for the U.S. in combating the Iranian military.

NATO BUILD-UP AROUND LEBANON

A naval configuration is being set up by the NATO military alliance in what may be a separate theatre in the new war on the Middle East. The first theatre is in Iran, and the second theatre is in Lebanon and Syria.

Naval build-up by NATO off the coast of Israel and Lebanon is justified by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ordained the "peacekeeping" assignment in Lebanon in August 2006. This newest peacekeeping mission was made necessary after the Israeli military destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure in an apparently unsuccessful summer assault targeting Hezbollah.

Many of NATO's peacekeepers, maintaining a "ceasefire" between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, have assisted in the occupation of Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion in 2001, and many have served in the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. GlobalResearch's report describes how in Lebanon, "under a formal peacekeeping mandate, NATO has become a de facto occupation force that is party to the Anglo-American agenda" and what he terms "the military road map" that the U.S. has already undertaken in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It now appears that the NATO peacekeeping operation is coordinated with Israel. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel (Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), and now continues to enforce a naval embargo on Lebanon that Israel began during their invasion in summer 2006. The embargo has UN approval as part of the "monitoring of the Lebanese coastline to enforce rules about the entry of military supplies and weapons into Lebanon."

Most key European powers are involved with this naval and troop build-up around Lebanon and Syria. NATO allies (led by Germany and Italy) are providing ships to patrol the seas off Lebanon, while NATO ground forces (led by France) occupy much of the country itself.

German warships will join the NATO naval forces, and Germany will in fact take command of these forces from Italy. The German naval deployment to the Eastern Mediterranean had to be approved by the German Bundestag, and it was. Bloomberg News reported in September 2006, "The naval mission, the first German deployment to the Middle East since the end of the Second World War, was backed by 442 lawmakers, with 152 against and 5 abstentions. As many as 2,400 German personnel will now be deployed to the region, backed by a one-year mandate expiring August 31, 2007. The mission brings the number of German soldiers serving overseas to above 10,000 for the first time in post-war [post-1945] history."

Three Danish warships will join the NATO armada. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has been a strong supporter of the Anglo-American takeovers in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Danes are considering sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Ten Greek warships are integrated into the NATO armada and have been given rein to "use force if needed." Spain also has two warships stationed off the Lebanese coast, and the Netherlands has offered two ships with a total crew of 150 sailors.

While Italy and Germany head the naval operations, France's participation is concentrated on ground forces in Lebanon. France is slated to have 2,000 troops in Lebanon and French tank and armor units help comprise "the most powerful armor ever deployed by a United Nations peacekeeping force" in history. This heavy tank contribution points to offensive possibilities from the U.N.-approved peacekeeping force, since tanks are known to be good in the lightning warfare of a "Blitzkrieg."

Italy has redeployed troops from Iraq to Lebanon. Spain has troops deployed near Tyre in South Lebanon, and more Spanish troops are also inland near the Syrian border and in the Golan Heights, a strategic area occupied by Israel since 1967. Belgium is also dispatching 400 troops to Southern Lebanon to help other NATO troops stationed there.

In September 2006, the Turkish government pledged troops to help occupy Lebanon, but they face intense public opposition to the move. Bulgaria has said it will send naval and ground forces to help patrol Lebanon, though its government voted to pull its troops from Iraq in 2005.

With NATO peacekeeping occupations now effective in Lebanon and Afghanistan, and with budding military alliances with the governments of Azerbaijan and Georgia, a "strategic triangle" is being formed around the entire Middle East.

The Balkans have also become an important staging ground for NATO operations. After helping to dismantle and occupy much of Yugoslavia in the 1990s (a country which had been the main regional power for much of the century), NATO now has forces stationed over large portions of the former Yugoslavia: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, and Macedonia. In the last few years, NATO has moved its military forces eastward with new bases in Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.

The Sunday Herald (UK) reported that the newly opened U.S. Air Force bases in Bulgaria have begun receiving squadrons of B-2 stealth bombers, well within range to bomb the Middle East. Will Romania and Bulgaria serve as new launching pads for a NATO attack in the Middle East?

In the fall of 2006, Russian news agencies reported their government's rising concerns about NATO expansion plans in the Balkans and former parts of the Russian Empire. NATO is now seeking entry of the Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Georgia into the Anglo-American run military cooperation pact, further surrounding Russia.

BAKU-TBILISI-CEYHAN (BTC) OIL PIPELINE

The Caspian-Mediterranean Oil Terminal is a new pipeline opened in July 2006 that connects the oil fields around the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. The pipeline runs from Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, through Georgia and its capital Tbilisi, and then southwest through Turkey to the Mediterranean coast near Ceyhan.

Observers see a connection between securing this pipeline and the NATO deployments around Syria and Iran. The terminal of this pipeline is very close to the coasts of Syria and Lebanon, where much of the NATO military build-up has been happening.

GlobalResearch analyzed the political significance of this new pipeline:

"Georgia occupies a strategic position with regard to the control and protection of the oil pipeline corridors out of the Caspian Sea Basin. It also constitutes a wedge between Russia, Armenia, and Iran. Azerbaijan serves primarily as an oil source ..."

The pipeline was opened in July 2006, but with little fanfare, given that Israel unleashed a bombing campaign and ground invasion of Lebanon the very same month.

U.S. MILITARY RHETORIC DOWNPLAYS ATTACK ON IRAN

In February 2007, the U.S. military based in the Persian Gulf issued a series of statements denying that the build-up of U.S. air, naval, and amphibious attack forces had anything to do with any operation against Iran.

Vice Admiral Patrick Walsh, the outgoing commander of the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the U.S. 5th Fleet (based in Bahrain), denied that the U.S. was planning anything "offensive" against Iran and said that U.S. military presence in the region was purely "defensive."

Vice Admiral Walsh, who is moving up to be Vice-Chief of naval operations at the Pentagon, said that during Iranian war exercises in 2006, "Iranian sailors have loaded mines onto small mine-laying boats and test-fired a Shahab-3 ballistic missile into international waters," and indicated that Iran might use these mines and missiles to threaten "innocent passage of vessels" through the Straits of Hormuz. "Mines are an offensive terrorist type of weapon," added Vice Adm. Walsh, who is being replaced by Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff as head of the U.S. Navy 5th Fleet.

Captain Bradley E. Johansson, commanding officer of the nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis, which entered the Persian Gulf in February 2007, said the carrier strike group's "mission right now is specifically focused on Afghanistan to provide the air support for the ground coalition troops there … Our positioning is focused to be adjacent to the air corridors that go over Pakistan into Afghanistan." The presence of two carrier strike groups also allows for "flexibility" in U.S. war operations. Capt. Johansson indicated that air battle groups were being stationed in the Persian Gulf region because its centralized location allows American forces the ability to carry out bombing raids and aerial surveillance operations in the multiplying regions where the U.S.-led coalition has occupation forces. These areas now span from Lebanon to Afghanistan, and down to Somalia, "The Horn of Africa," the latest strategic victim of regime change at the hands of the U.S. military.

Captain Sterling G. Gilliam, head of the eight-squadron Air Wing Nine, reiterated the official explanation for the build-up of American air power off Iran's coastline. "Right now we are just focused on supporting the war on terror and providing support for our forces on the ground in Afghanistan." Like Capt. Johansson, Capt. Gilliam was certain to use terms like "right now" and "focused" so as not to completely deny bombing plans for Iran, but only downplay them temporarily.

OPPOSITION TO THE NEW WAR WITH IRAN

There has been some dissent voiced by Democratic Party Leaders. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada warned that, "The president does not have the authority to launch military action without first seeking congressional authorization." There is also sharp division among some globalist strategists about using violent military action against Iran.

For many decades a prime "mover and shaker" in promoting the cause of corporate internationalism, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has made harsh criticisms and dire warnings about any sort of US attack on Iran.

Mr. Brzezinski wrote an op-ed piece that appeared in newspapers worldwide in April 2006, titled simply "Do not attack Iran." In this analysis, the former Carter Administration cabinet member stated, "If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the president." He also described how violence would probably erupt in neighboring countries, and oil prices would climb, disrupting modern economies across the globe.

In a February 1, 2007, hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Brzezinski said about Iraq, "American public opinion holds that the war was a mistake," and that neoconservatives' drive to escalate the Iraq War is clearly an "isolationist" policy for American security and prosperity. "One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the [Bush] administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global position."

He then described the "mythical historical narrative" being promulgated by warmongers of all stripes, a narrative that has been changing since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, but that has now crystallized. Brzezinski said, "The war is now being redefined as the 'decisive ideological struggle' of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism." World War II is still considered a "just war" by most, so the Bush Administration tries to tie the war on terror narrative as closely as possible to that of the Second World War. According to Mr. Brzezinski, this "mythical historical narrative" for Bush's War on Terrorism thus makes the horrific murder of thousands of people in New York City on 9/11 a central event to its entire view of current history, "as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated American involvement in World War II."

SPARKING THE WAR CONFLAGRATION

Many are wondering what will be the spark to set off the new war bonfire. Given the horrific death and destruction that have become hallmarks of U.S. war on terror operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, what would it take for Americans to accept a full-scale war against Iran?

World Net Daily commentator Jerome Corsi seems to think the USA is almost being "forced" into starting World War III. He surmises that, "Should Iran launch a cruise missile at a U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf, we will have war right now. Should an Iranian missile sink a U.S. carrier, the U.S. population would experience another 9/11 moment. At that point, a massive U.S.-led military strike on Iran would become inevitable." Corsi points to the wider war that will likely ensue beyond the front along the coasts of Southern Iran, and says, "If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, [Israeli P.M.] Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israeli military into Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war…" that could even include Russia and China.

In January 2007, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of Texas warned of "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident (that) may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran." The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Lyndon B. Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes, however, reveal that the Tonkin attack of August 4, 1964, was a "false alarm" and did not take place, but was used as justification to step up U.S. air strikes on North Vietnam, and increase funding for bomb-builders.

During his February 1, 2007, hearing, Zbigniew Brzezinski made some startling remarks about misgivings he had that the Bush Administration might blame Iran for an upcoming terrorist attack in the U.S., and send U.S. bombers against this foreign land, even if there is not sufficient evidence to justify the accusation against Iran.

Mr. Brzezinski said: "A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves an Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran."

Brzezinski's description of a terrorist attack "blamed" on Iran which "forces" the U.S. into a pre-planned "defensive" war against Iran (note the quotation marks) would be termed by many to be a "false flag attack."

What is a "false-flag"? Adri Mehra of the Minnesota Daily wrote about false-flag operations in history and explained, "False flags are top-secret military operations that are designed to look like they were conducted by other governments -- in short, pretending to be the enemy in order to start a war. The name is derived from the practice of flying "false colors" in naval warfare, in which a ship raises the flag of a country other than its own in order to deceive and confuse other ships, and provide a means for attack and, ultimately, a pretext for war."

Mr. Mehra described one of the most famous apparent false-flag attacks in U.S. history, the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana, Cuba in 1898, a spark that set off a wave of indignation across America, and led to the Spanish-American War and U.S. conquest and colonization of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii and the Philippines:

"In 1898, the U.S.S. Maine was sent by its superiors uninvited to Havana harbor near Cuba and mysteriously sank, likely due to spontaneous combustion caused by a coal bunker (then a frequent problem on ships built after the Civil War), according to a report published by Navy Admiral Hyman G. Rickover in 1976.

"However, at the time, President McKinley immediately blamed the Spanish in Cuba for planting a mine that destroyed the ship, despite no testimony, documentation or specific accusation of Spanish authorities.

"What's more, there were no recorded eyewitnesses that reported having seen jets of water thrown up during the massive explosion, nor were there any dead fish found to be floating in the harbor - both necessary characteristics of such a catastrophic underwater event."

Despite the lack of evidence against Spain, the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine and death of over 250 U.S. sailors provided a pretext for the U.S.'s pre-planned war of liberation in Cuba.

There are many signs that the Bush Administration is preparing a military confrontation with Iran, but would U.S. government leaders be willing and able to use a "false-flag" terrorist incident blamed on Iran to plunge America into a dangerous new military adventure?

CONSEQUENCES OF ATTACKING IRAN

GlobalResearch's report states that the war being planned may be much bigger than any of the previous phases of the war on terror. "A conflict against Iran and Syria … would be wider in scope, deadlier, and have active aerial and naval fronts. Sea power would be of greater significance than in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon," the more recent NATO battle fronts.

Oil from many parts of the Middle East flows out from the Persian Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz, and on to the Arabian Sea, Indian Ocean, and the wider world.

One of the main centers of conflict in a U.S.-Iran war would be this region around the Straits of Hormuz. The Straits of Hormuz, sometimes referred to as the "energy lifeline to the world," are 34 miles across, though the path that oil tankers take through the straits is only six miles wide.

GlobalResearch's report states that, "If there were to be a conflict with Iran, the United States and its partners would want to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for the flow of international oil." If this waterway is closed off, it will disrupt the petroleum flow that fuels modern society. Will the U.S. be able to keep the oil tankers flowing while their strike forces are attacking Iran?

The U.S strategy will certainly be for a quick, decisive victory, but it is hard to know what will happen in a "real combat situation" when U.S. troops face Iranian mines and missile attacks. What if the battle closes off the Straits of Hormuz -- how will the market react to this cut in supply?

GlobalResearch points out, "The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Oil Terminal will become even more significant and important if Iran should successfully close off the Straits of Hormuz."

CONCLUSION

In Europe, observers continue to cover the naval build-up in the Middle East by the U.S. and her allies. Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported in February 2007 that, "Speculations over an impending attack [on Iran] intensified in recent days after British naval officials revealed that their presence since October [2006] had doubled, with a French aircraft carrier steaming towards the region."

Retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, who published a lengthy report on the Bush Administration's deceptive war propaganda practices leading up to the Iraq war, has been watching the pieces fall into place for the new war and says, "I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran. It's a terrible idea. It's against U.S. law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it."

Some observers suspect U.S. forces under the command of George W. Bush might turn this war "nuclear" given the fact that many Iranian nuclear facilities are underground, and previous executive reports have extolled possible benefits of the "nuclear option." In May 2004, the Bush Administration issued a "National Security Presidential Directive" called "Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization." This report is classified but may relate to "tactical nuclear weapons" and the appropriateness of using "mini-nukes" against war on terror enemies, as outlined in CONPLAN 8022, a Pentagon report issued in early 2004 and covered in the Washington Post.

Even if the U.S. public is not willing to support a surgical assault on Iran, what with the rampant death, innocent casualties, and general ruination and destruction accompanying the hi-tech violence of modern warfare, The Sunday Herald reported a key note being run through "the rumour mill": "If the US does not take action against Iran then it will hand the task over to its ally, Israel, whose air force has recently been equipped with US bunker-busting ordnance capable of destroying Iran's hidden nuclear facilities … Israeli defence forces are negotiating with the US to provide an air corridor over Iraq to enable their war planes to overfly the country in order to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. The Israelis have carried out such an attack before: in 1981 they bombed Iraq 's nuclear reactor at Osirak and destroyed the country's fledgling nuclear industry."

Will people accept further "bloodshed by choice" by George W. Bush and Co. and continue to pledge their earnings and volunteer their children for what is unraveling into a general war with the Muslim world in order to "transform the Middle East"? With signs pointing to a new war, now is the time for Americans to decide.

LINKS
GlobalResearch.ca: The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

---

Reader Comments

3/25/2007

They'll probably time it with the total collapse of
the subprime market and when all those homes go into
final foreclosure. That way, when they reintroduce the
draft, everyone won't care.

-- Robert Rowsey
San Diego, Calif.

---

3/25/2007

Chilling! It's all too real a possibility given US history: Mexico, Spain, WWI, Viet Nam and Iraq. There are more but whatever -- the USA has a long war pig history. Let's hope not and do what we can to stop it.

-- Chuck
Nice and Friendly
Venice, Calif.

---

3/25/2007

"... indicates the US may be planning to attack Iran."
It works for me.

-- Billy Zoom
Orange, Calif.

---

3/26/2007

A very thorough rendition of the situation. My concern has always been why? Why can't Iran have nukes? Who decides who can join the club? The current members? We have Israel, who refuses to sign the non-proliferation treaty, and doesn't officially acknowledge having them. Are they a de facto member of the club? How many inspections of Israel have been carried out? While we continue development of our own arsenal, we pontificate what others can do. How long will the world go along with that?

-- Raff Ellis
Orlando, Fla.

---

3/26/2007

Shrub is certainly the most dangerous man alive.

The UN raised it's level of presence in the Mediterranean during sanctions against Iraq too, even though they had no intention of war. The increased UN Security Council sanctions against Iran on Saturday show (I hope) that they are following the same path of rule making, inspection and enforcement through diplomacy and sanctions that they followed with Iraq.

The UN couldn't stop Shrub the first time. With enough support however, maybe they can stop him the second time.

Security Council tightens sanctions against Iran over uranium enrichment

-- Bruce Melton, P.E.
Austin, Tex.

Citizine Home