This article is part of the series: The coming war against Iran
[ 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15 - 16 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 - 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 - 45 ]

De komende oorlog tegen Iran - deel 10

false flagoperatie tegen Iran
De lage score van Bush en de Republikeinse partij in de polls zijn een slecht teken voor eenieder die geen oorlog wil tegen Iran. En voor hen die vrezen dat een false flag operation het startschot zal vormen voor de aanval, was het ook geen goed nieuws dat de inmiddels ontslagen Engelse buitenlandminister Jack Straw de legaliteit van een aanval betwist als die niet uit zelfverdediging gebeurt. De BBC schrijft: 'Of course, the legality of any attack would be hard to justify. The British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told reporters this week: "I don't happen to believe that military action has a role to play in any event. We could not justify it under Article 51 of the UN charter which permits self defence."' Daar komt een bericht bij van Capitol Hill Blue over een geheim Republikeins memorandum: 'The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could “validate” the President's war on terror and allow Bush to “unite the country” in a “time of national shock and sorrow.”' Andreas von Bülow, geheimedienstenexpert en Duits ex-minister in een interview met Alex Jones: '"The Bush administration is in a deep defensive [mode] and probably they would like to come out with a new offensive," said Von Bülow as he considered whether a new staged false flag terror attack could be launched to further an interventionist agenda.'

Aanval op Iran leidt tot ramp in Midden-Oosten
'Robert Gallucci, a former government expert on nonproliferation who is now the dean of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown', iemand die er rekening mee houdt dat Iran nog acht tot tien jaar af is van het maken van een nucleaire bom, zegt tegen journalist Seymour Hersh: '“If they [Iran] had a covert nuclear program and we could prove it, and we could not stop it by negotiation, diplomacy, or the threat of sanctions, I'd be in favor of taking it out. But if you do it”—bomb Iran—“without being able to show there's a secret program, you're in trouble.”' Een adviseur voor het Pentagon vraagt zich zelfs af wat de waarde is van luchtaanvallen: '“The Iranians have distributed their nuclear activity very well, and we have no clue where some of the key stuff is. It could even be out of the country,” he said. He warned, as did many others, that bombing Iran could provoke “a chain reaction” of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world: “What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?”'
The Washington Post schrijft over een wargame van Sam Gardiner, een kolonel b.d. met twintig jaar ervaring in het organiseren van wargames: 'Gardiner concluded that a military attack would not work, but said he believes the United States seems to be moving inexorably toward it.' In een interview met DemocracyNow zegt Gardiner: '[...] by going through how the United States might attack Iranian nuclear facilities, I have to tell you that there is no solution in that path. In fact, it is a path towards probably making things in the Middle East much worse. It's not a solution to either stopping the Iranians or spreading democracy in the Middle East or getting us out of Iraq. It's a path that leads to disaster in many dimensions.' Hersh spreekt een Europees diplomaat die ook niet gelooft in een militaire oplossing van het conflict: '“If the diplomatic process doesn't work, there is no military ‘solution.' There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.” [...] Other European officials expressed similar skepticism about the value of an American bombing campaign. “The Iranian economy is in bad shape, and Ahmadinejad is in bad shape politically,” the European intelligence official told me. “He will benefit politically from American bombing. You can do it, but the results will be worse.” An American attack, he said, would alienate ordinary Iranians, including those who might be sympathetic to the U.S. “Iran is no longer living in the Stone Age, and the young people there have access to U.S. movies and books, and they love it,” he said. “If there was a charm offensive with Iran, the mullahs would be in trouble in the long run.” Another European official told me that he was aware that many in Washington wanted action. “It's always the same guys,” he said, with a resigned shrug. “There is a belief that diplomacy is doomed to fail. The timetable is short.” [...]
Any American bombing attack, [voormalig vice-minister voor Buitenlandse Zaken] Richard Armitage told me, would have to consider the following questions: “What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?” [...] Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.” Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah.'

Iran kan terugslaan middels asymetrische oorlogsvoering
In een interview [WMV, transcript] met CNN zegt Sam Gardiner: '[...] if you're going to do it [attack Iran], you're under a lot pressure not to just stir up the bees' nest, but to go after the stingers. I don't mean to be cute about that, but if there's going to about strike, you can't leave the medium-range ballistic missile unhit, you can't leave the air bases that are within 30 flying minutes of Baghdad unhit, you can't leave the chemical facilities unhit. You may want to hit the terrorist training camps. So what happens is, very quickly, you end up with a relatively large operation, even though you started with just the nuclear sites. [...] My assessment is -- and it's because of regime problems at home -- that if we strike, they're likely to want to blame Israel. Now that's -- because that sells well at home [Iran]. Blaming Israel means that there's a chance that we could see Hezbollah, Hamas targeting Israel. We could very easily see this thing escalate into a broader Middle East war, particularly when you add Muslim rage.' Denk hierbij ook aan de $50 miljoen die Iran heeft toegezegd aan de Palestijnse Autoriteit na een fundraiser door een van Hamas' leiders, Khaled Meshaal en de $10 miljoen die door Rusland is toegezegd. Een kat in het nauw maakt rare sprongen en houdt zich niet noodzakelijk aan de regels, op deze situatie is de term 'asymmetrical warfare' van toepassing: 'Iran could activate Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, whom it supports, to launch attacks on Israel. It could have operatives attack U.S. interests in Azerbaijan, Central Asia or Turkey. "Iran can escalate the war," said Hadian. "It's not going to be all that hard to target U.S. forces in these countries." But most analysts agree that Iran's biggest trump card would be to unleash havoc in neighboring Iraq, where Shiites who spent years in Iran as exiles are assuming control of the government. [...] "If Iran wanted, it could make Iraq a hell for the United States," Hamid al-Bayati, Iraq's deputy foreign minister, said recently', schrijft de San Francisco Chronicle. Vergeet hierbij ook niet de Nederlandse aanwezigheid in bijvoorbeeld Irak (NTM-I) en Uruzgan; [Flashoverzicht Nederlandse missies].
Het is onwaarschijnlijk dat Irans leider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad zijn houding zal gaan matigen. In een interview met DemocracyNow zegt Seymour Hersh: '[...] what I think he's doing, he's basically playing chicken, like in the old James Dean movie, the two cars going at each other at high speed. He's playing chicken with the President of the United States.' Sam Gardiner vergelijkt in de WDR-documentaire Planspiel Iran [Zie ook de bewerkte recentere versie ervan] de situatie in het Midden-Oosten met een mobile: 'When you hit one and one starts moving, the whole thing begins to move.' Het lijkt erop dat de CIA en de DIA daar ook al achter zijn gekomen, schrijft Newsweek: '[...] CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, "The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating."' 'Prof Rogers, of the University of Bradford's peace studies department, says: "A military operation against Iran would not ... be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation"', schrijft The Guardian. Gardiner: 'So anybody that says that they know where this might come out probably doesn't appreciate the Middle East. Because once you set this thing in motion the idea of where it ends up, you can't predict. The impact could be very serious if we keep going down this road.'

Militaire kritiek op nucleaire optie gesmoord door Bushregering
Seymour Hersh schrijft: '[... The] former senior intelligence official said: [...] “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This [an attack on Iran] is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don't have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they're shouted down.” The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.'” The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”'

Overeenkomsten opbouw oorlogen Irak - Iran
Zoals ook bleek uit de presentatie door DeepJournal in de Balie, wordt net als bij de opbouw naar de Irakoorlog door de Bushregering gebruik gemaakt van verdraaide feiten en andere onwaarheden om het doel van een militaire confrontatie te bereiken. Republikeins Congreslid Ron Paul schrijft: 'Already the coordinating propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had. It's amazing how soon after being thoroughly discredited over the charges levied against Saddam Hussein the Neo-cons are willing to use the same arguments against Iran. It's frightening to see how easily Congress, the media, and the people accept many of the same arguments against Iran that were used to justify an invasion of Iraq. [...] The sad truth is that the supposed dangers posed by Iran are no more real than those claimed about Iraq. [...] There is no evidence of a threat to us by Iran, and no reason to plan and initiate a confrontation with her.'
'The Administration's case against Iran is compromised by its history of promoting false intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction', schrijft Seymour Hersh. 'In a recent essay on the Foreign Policy Web site, entitled “Fool Me Twice,” Joseph Cirincione, the director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote, “The unfolding administration strategy appears to be an effort to repeat its successful campaign for the Iraq war.” He noted several parallels: 'The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. Secretary of State tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The Secretary of Defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism.' Cirincione called some of the Administration's claims about Iran “questionable” or lacking in evidence. When I spoke to him, he asked, “What do we know? What is the threat? The question is: How urgent is all this?” The answer, he said, “is in the intelligence community and the I.A.E.A.” (In August, the Washington Post reported that the most recent comprehensive National Intelligence Estimate predicted that Iran was a decade away from being a nuclear power.)' Iran is ondertekenaar van het Nonproliferatieverdrag, in tegenstelling tot India, Israël en Pakistan, landen die worden gesteund door de VS. Intussen heeft bijvoorbeeld Brazilië een nucleair programma.
'“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That's just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years”', schrijft Hersh. Ron Paul, lid van het Huis van Afgevaardigden schrijft: 'There are now fewer denials that securing oil supplies played a significant role in our decision to go into Iraq and stay there.'
Ook de clandestiene operaties die nu in Iran plaatsvinden zijn een overeenkomst met de opbouw naar de Irak-oorlog omdat toen ook soortgelijke operaties plaatsvonden, zoals bleek uit de Downingstreet Memo's waarover DeepJournal uitgebreid heeft geschreven. 'We now know that the decision and the actual actions to bomb Iraq occurred in July of 2002, before we ever had a U.N. resolution or before the Congress ever authorized it. It was an operation called Southern Focus, and [...] the guidance that the military had from Rumsfeld was keep it below the CNN line. His specific words. [...]', aldus Sam Gardiner in een interview met DemocracyNow. Wat in de zaak-Iran een punt van aandacht kan worden is het feit dat in de aanloop naar de Irak-oorlog speciale programma's zijn ontwikkeld om desinformatie te verspreiden teneinde het publiek te misleiden en dat toen 'The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made'', aldus de belangrijkste anti-terrorisme-analist van de CIA, Paul R. Pillar. (Zie voor meer informatie over beide punten dit artikel van DeepJournal.

Volgt China na Iran?
Professor en auteur Michael T. Klare schrijft in de Asia Times: 'Slowly but surely, the grand strategy of the Bush administration is being revealed. [...] The truly commanding objective - the underlying basis for budgets and troop deployments - is the containment of China.' Klare in een ander artikel: 'But only a small share of the increase [of the proposed Pentagon budget for the Long War] would cover specialized anti-terror and counter-insurgency systems. The biggest and costliest items -- such as nuclear-powered submarines and long-range bombers -- are intended for use against an entirely different enemy: the People's Republic of China.' 'The Pentagon has made no secret of its increasing focus on China as a potential threat to stability in Asia and the Pacific, where U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea have been key underpinnings of the region's economic growth', schrijft Associated Press onder de kop 'U.S. makes plans for a hostile China - The Chinese military buildup has South Korea, Japan and the U.S. planning for a possible confrontation.' 'The Washington Times reported Thursday that its three-month investigation of the U.S. military buildup in Asia showed that it is part of a covert strategy in which the U.S. military position in that region is being strengthened in ways designed to avoid provoking the Chinese and to dissuade them from becoming a hostile power.'

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4

When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - 3

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2

In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.

read more

Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1

On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.

read more

Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival

​Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.

read more