Tag Archive: Strike on Iran


‘The problem with American power is not that it is American. The problem is simply the power. It would be dangerous even for an archangel to have so much power.’ Tim Garton Ash.

‘Stop this bullshit now.’ Cindy Sheehan.

Video clip

Advertisements

America’s Lost Highway

LIKE GEORGE W’S

WAR ON TERROR

A MOEBIUS STRIP

IS A TWO

DIMENSIONAL SURFACE

WITH ONLY ONE  FACE.

A MOEBIUS STRIP REPRESENTS INFINITY.

WHEN YOU CUT A MOEBIUS  STRIP (Afghanistan) IN HALF LENGTHWAYS 

YOU GET A DOUBLE MOEBIUS STRIP (Afghanistan + Iraq).

IF YOU CUT IT AGAIN YOU GET A TRIPLE STRIP (Afghanistan + Iraq + Iran) AND SO ON INTO INFINITY.

WHEN YOU RIDE A MOEBIUS STRIP IT’S LIKE GOING BACK TO THE BEGINNING (Vietnam) IN SPACE ON A ONE-DIMENSIONAL SURFACE: YOU MUST CONTINUE AND CONTINUE AND YOU WILL NEVER CROSS YOUR STARTING POINT AGAIN.

LIKE LIFE ITSELF IT IS A PERPETUAL RESTART, NEVER FROM THE SAME POINT.

(click on image to enlarge)

Voting against Global War On Humanity

The nine documents below point to an extremely high probability that the Bush administration will use tactical nuclear weapons in its planned offensive against Iran.

The outcome of the November election will be the deciding factor in whether Bush goes to war before he leaves office.

Nuclear Posture Review 2001,(exerpts): “Nuclear weapons… provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force …U.S. military forces themselves, including nuclear forces will now be used to dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends… Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of miltary campaigns to defeat opponents decisively… Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)… North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies.”

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, 2005: “Geographic combatant commanders may request Presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons… To demonstrate US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD”

Conditions under which nuclear weapons may be used: “For rapid and favorable war termination on US terms.”

National Security Strategy, 2006: “…the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively… using all elements of national power…Safe, credible and reliable nuclear forces continue to play a critical role…”

National Military Strategy to Combat WMD, 2006: “Offensive operations may include kinetic (both conventional and nuclear)… to deter or defeat a WMD threat…”

Linton Brooks, NNSA Director, to Congress, 2004: “The Nuclear Posture Review represented a radical departure from the past and the most fundamental rethinking of the roles and purposes of nuclear weapons in almost a quarter-century… Instead of treating nuclear weapons in isolation, it considered them as an integrated component of American military power…To provide a practical means to implement this new, integrated aproach, the President established a new Strategic Command, with responsibility for global strike – both nuclear and non-nuclear …”

Gen. Cartwright, StratCom head, to Congress, 2005: “…We are active participants in all three legs of The New Triad: offensive nuclear and non-nuclear strike, … The New Triad concept will enable more precisely tailored global strike operations. With a full spectrum of nuclear, conventional and non-kinetic options available, regional combatant commanders will be enabled to achieve specific local effects against high value targets in the context of the strategic objective…”

Earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, FAS report: “The United States has one type of nuclear earth penetrator, the B61-11 bomb, which was accepted into the stockpile in September 2001” (Congressional Research Service)

National Research Council report: “in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds”

“The Bush administration has radically redefined America’s nuclear use policy: US nuclear weapons are no longer regarded as qualitatively different from conventional weapons. Many actions of the administration in recent years strongly suggest that an imminent US nuclear use is being planned for, and this was confirmed by Bush’s explicit refusal to rule out a US nuclear strike against Iran. We have all been put on notice. The fact that North Korea is now a nuclear country does not change the agenda – quite the contrary.”

Click here to read Voting against nuclear war with Iran, by Jorge Hirsch

Lebanon an American campaign by proxy

I have written about the Bush administration’s covert involvement in Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah.

Now Dan Glaister writes in the Guardian:

“The US government was closely involved in planning [the war] even before Hezbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in cross-border raids in July. American and Israeli officials met in the spring, discussing plans on how to tackle Hezbollah.”

As of this morning the guns have been silent.

What we have seen in Lebanon, however, was, I believe, only the first phase of a strike by the US on Iran, with Israel as an American proxy, designed by Bush to reduce the threat of possible Hezbollah ( as a Syrian and Iranian proxy) retaliation against Israel in the event of such an action.

Seymour Hersh told CNN Sunday:

“July was a pretext for a major offensive that had been in the works for a long time. Israel’s attack was going to be a model for the attack they really want to do. They really want to go after Iran.”

In the current issue of New Yorker magazine Hersh, Quoting a US government source, says:

“Earlier this summer…several Israeli officials visited Washington, separately, ‘to get a green light for the bombing operation and to find out how much the United States would bear.”

The unnamed Pentagon consultant added:

“It was our intention to have Hezbollah diminished and now we have someone else doing it.”

State department and Pentagon officials deny the report.

“The Israeli government gave no official in Washington any reason to believe that Israel was planning to attack.”

Well, they would say that, woudn’t they?

This from Richard Silverstein:

“Everyone in the media talking about this crisis notes that Hezbollah is a Syrian and Iranian proxy. But no one is saying that Israel may be a U.S. proxy. Not that Israel is doing on our behalf anything it doesn’t want to do. But may we not be advancing our own foreign policy objectives in confronting Iran through Israel’s bloodying of Lebanon and by extension Hezbollah? Are we allowing Israel to fight the first phase of a proxy war against Iran in much the same way that the Nazis used the Franco forces in the Spanish Civil War both as a proxy and as a stepping stone to a much greater conflict to come? And if there is any truth here (and this is all educated conjecture on my part), then the second phase of this conflict could be a direct confrontation between Iran and the U.S.” 

Read Seymour Hersh’s article.

%d bloggers like this: