By Daan de Wit
Twenty-two countries, among them Germany, France and the Netherlands, are laying the foundations for a war against Iran by endorsing the resolution of the IAEA. This is a venture that could potentially lead to serious consequences. The US and Israel are getting ready for a preemptive strike against Iran, and the US is not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons. All that remains is a provocation, a second September 11th for example, carried out by Israel or the US.
The Dutch in the original article has been translated into English by Ben Kearney.
The world is massing itself against Iran by endorsing the IAEA's aggressive move, which threatens to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. We addressed the legitimacy of this process earlier in this series of articles, but of immediate interest at this point is the product of the conspiracy against Iran by the IAEA and the twenty-two undersigning countries, which might be used as the basis for a preemptive strike by Israel and the US. This indirect threat to world peace was rewarded last week when the Nobel Peace Prize was bestowed on the IAEA and its chairman, Mohamed ElBaradei. The Iranian news agency MehrNews saw the writing on the wall: 'Encouraged by his Nobel Peace Prize, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will be able to take more serious measures against Iran and drift away from the neutral stance that the IAEA is supposed to take, [political analyst] Dr. Ali Khorram said on Monday.' Examples of previous recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize are Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger.
Preparation for war against Iran resembles Iraq war
The step by step run-up to the Iraq war, in which both military and diplomatic preparation went hand in hand, looks identical to the current road to war in Iran. Another step in the direction of war with Iran is the charge made earlier this month by British Prime Minister Blair that Iran may be responsible for attacks on English soldiers. The Associated Press headline read: 'Blair: Iran suspected of aiding attacks in Iraq'. Recently, two British SAS-agents dressed as Arabs -complete with black wigs- were caught sitting in a car full of explosives in Basra. These men, along with the secrets they possessed, were of such great importance that they were freed in a spectacular military operation in which even tanks were called in. In an extensive article, Michael Keefer reveals that the SAS agents were most likely setting up a false-flag operation with the ultimate objective of contributing to the division of the country (read more about this in previous articles in this series; see also the accompanying map). The goal of starting a war against Iran is also evident in such tactics, especially now that control of Iraq is being contested between the minority Sunnis, who enjoyed power under Saddam, and the majority Shiites, who by and large run the show now.
In addition to the vague "We cannot be sure" accusations of Blair, a recent briefing containing unfounded and suspect information about Iran was given to key countries by the US, resembling the approach taken during the lead-up to the Iraq war: '[...] a non-Western diplomat said the US briefing, carried out in various capitals ahead of a meeting in September of the UN atomic watchdog, "looks plausible but there is no hard evidence" giving direct proof of a nuclear warhead project.' This recent quote could just as well have been made during preparations for the war on Iraq in 2002.
As DeepJournal has extensively described, namely in our article on the Downing Street Memos, the decision to wage war against Iraq was made well before any international discussion about it was even starting. Even before September 11th, the intention was there. Public debate, worldwide demonstrations, diplomatic wrangling - nothing could keep a war in Iraq from becoming a reality; it was necessary to put up a show, to deceive. And now it seems that nothing can stop the coming war with Iran: 'So the United States, backed by Israel, is deadly earnest about neutralizing Iran's nuclear weapons site. "The administration has determined that there is no diplomatic solution," said John Pike, president of the online think-tank globalsecurity.org. [...] Said [former CIA operative Vince] Cannistraro of the administration's policy: "Its very, very, very dangerous.", reports UPI.
Israeli military preparations for Iran war
Webster Tarpley quotes Gerhard Schröder, who in mid-August spoke to Bild am Sonntag: 'I consider the military option extremely dangerous. I can definitely exclude that under my leadership this government would be a part of it.' On Monday Schröder gave way to the neocon Angela Merkel. Russian President Vladimir Putin had earlier declared Schröder the moral victor. This is in line with another recent statement by Putin concerning the use of nuclear weapons by the US, which he feels carries the risk of deteriorating into a nuclear conflict. Tarpley fittingly recognizes in this the spectre of the one nuclear superpower squared off against the other. Throw another atomic power into the mix, Israel, and Putin's vision begins to take shape. How does Israel figure into all of this? A headline in The Sunday Times earlier this year read: 'Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant'. The Times went on to say: 'ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.' There have already been exercises conducted, the article explained: 'Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel's elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.' It is also the case that Israeli-trained Kurds are assisting the US in Iranian territory with the gathering of intelligence that could be helpful in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Kurds are in good standing with the US; DeepJournal reported earlier on the fact that the Kurds were the ones who had taken Saddam captive, drugged him, and then handed him over to the Americans.
Israel and US get set for initial phase of attack on Iran
Alongside the Kurds, Israel and the US have also sent in the MEK, a group of about 10,000 Iranian rebels. '"This looks to be turning into a pretty large-scale covert operation," a former long-time CIA operator in the region told UPI.' UPI describes how the US is preparing for the preliminary assault on Iran: 'The United States is also attempting to erect a covert infrastructure in Iran able to support US efforts, this source said. It consists of Israelis and other US assets, using third country passports, who have created a network of front companies that they own and staff. "It's a covert infrastructure for material support," a US administration official said. The network would be able to move money, weapons and personnel around inside Iran, he said. The covert infrastructure could also provide safe houses and the like, he said. [Former CIA-operative Vince] Cannistraro, who knew of the program, said: "I doubt the quality of these kinds or programs," explaining the United States had set up a similar network just before the hostage-rescue attempt in 1980. "People forget that the Iranians quickly rolled up that entire network after the rescue attempt failed," Cannistraro said.' While there may be doubts about the quality of the infrastructure, the point is that it is now being set up.
Think tank advocates preemptive strike by Israel
In an article Webster Tarpley points to a report by an Israeli think tank entitled ISRAEL’S STRATEGIC FUTURE - The Final Report of Project Daniel, presented to Prime Minister Sharon of Israel. 'The Group suggests strongly and unequivocally that conventional Israeli preemption against selected enemy nuclear infrastructures now in development be executed as early as possible, and – wherever possible – in collaboration with the United States. Where America may be unable or unwilling to act proactively against these infrastructures, it is essential that Israel be able and willing to act alone. [...] Preemption may be overt or covert, and range from “decapitation” to full-scale military operations [...], and that – wherever possible – it be entirely conventional in nature.'
The stance taken in this report is supported by two American reports US Policy Options for Iran (PDF) of the Iran Policy Committee and Iran -- A New Approach (PDF) from the Committee on the Present Danger. 'Both papers favored military strikes against suspected nuclear and other weapons facilities if that was the only way to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and endorsed "regime change" as US policy', writes investigative journalist Jim Lobe. He explains that an important indication that a war on Iran is imminent will be the lifting of the MEK's terrorist designation. The MEK, short for Mujahedin e-Khalq, has been classified as a terrorist group by the US State Department since 1997, due to among other things, the killing of a number of American civil servants in the 1970's. UPI's Intelligence Correspondent Richard Sale wrote at the beginning of this year that the MEK is already being employed in Iran, albeit unofficially.