|
Beating the Drums of War: Provoking Iran into "Firing the First Shot"?
By Michel Chossudovsky | |||||||||||||||||||
Global Research, January 14, 2012 | |||||||||||||||||||
[Author's Note: SAY NO TO WAR ON IRAN, Spread the word, forward this article, post it on Facebook. Our objective at Global Research is to curb the flow of media disinformation, reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.] While the possibility of a war with Iran is acknowledged in US news reports, its regional and global implications are barely analyzed. Very few people in America are aware or informed regarding the devastation and massive loss of life which would occur in the case of a US-Israeli sponsored attack on Iran. The media is involved in a deliberate process of camouflage and distortion. War preparations under a "Global Strike" Concept, centralized and coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) are not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern, including the local level crime scene or the tabloid gossip reports on Hollywood celebrities. The "Globalization of War" involving the hegemonic deployment of a formidable US-NATO military force in all major regions of the World is inconsequential in the eyes of the Western media. The broader implications of this war are either trivialized or not mentioned. People are led to believe that war is part of a "humanitarian mandate" and that both Iran as well as Iran's allies, namely China and Russia, constitute an unrelenting threat to global security and "Western democracy". While the most advanced weapons system are used, America's wars are never presented as "killing operations" resulting in extensive civilian casualties. While the incidence of "collateral damage" is acknowledged, US-led wars are heralded as an unquestionable instrument of "peace-making" and "democratization". This twisted notion that waging war is "a worthy cause", becomes entrenched in the inner consciousness of millions of people. A framework of "good versus evil" overshadows an understanding of the causes and devastating consequences of war. Within this mindset, realities as well as concepts are turned upside down. War becomes peace. The lie becomes the truth. The humanitarian mandate of the Pentagon and NATO cannot be challenged. When "going after the bad guys", in the words of president Obama, "no options can be taken off the table". An inquisitorial doctrine similar to that of the Spanish Inquisition, prevails. People are no longer allowed to think. Iran is a country of close to 80 million people. It constitutes a major and significant regional military and economic power. It has ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, more than five times those of the United States of America. The conquest of Iran's oil riches is the driving force behind America's military agenda. Iran's oil and gas industry is the unspoken trophy of the US led war, which has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon for the last nine years. While the US is on a war footing, Iran has --for more than ten years-- been actively developing its military capabilities in the eventuality of a US sponsored attack. If hostilities were to break out between Iran and the Western military alliance, this could trigger a regional war extending from the Mediterranean to the Chinese border, potentially leading humanity into the realm of a World War III scenario. The Russian government, in a recent statement, has warned the US and NATO that "should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security.” What this signifies is that Russia is Iran's military ally and that Russia will act militarily if Iran is attacked. Military Deployment Iran is the target of US-Israel-NATO war plans. Advanced weapons systems have been deployed. US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran. US military drones are involved in spying and reconnaissance activities. Bunker buster B61 tactical nuclear weapons are slated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its alleged nuclear weapons program. Ironically, in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.” The risk of armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran is, according to Israeli military analysts "dangerously close". There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history, The drill, called “Austere Challenge 12,” is scheduled to take place within the next few weeks Its stated purpose "is to test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems, especially the “Arrow” system, which the country specifically developed with help from the US to intercept Iranian missiles." Reports also suggest a substantial increase in the number of reservists who are being deployed to the Middle East. Reports confirm that reservist US Air Force personnel have been dispatched to military bases in South West Asia (Persian Gulf). From Minnesota more than 120 Airmen including pilots, navigators, mechanics, etc. departed for the Middle East on January 8. Reservist US air force personnel from bases in North Carolina and Georgia "expect to deploy with their units in coming months". (See fayobserver.com December 18, 2011) Reserve units from the US Coastguard have also been dispatched to the Middle East.(Coast Guard Reservists Head to Middle East military.com, January 5, 2012) From these local reports, however, it is impossible to establish the overall (net) increase of US reservists from different divisions of the US military, who have been assigned to "operation Iran war". Army reservists from the UK are also been sent to the Middle East. US Troops to Israel and the Persian Gulf Israel has become a de facto US military outpost. US and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel's Ministry of Defense. A large number of US troops will be stationed in Israel once the war games are completed. The assumption of this military deployment is the staging of a joint US-Israeli air attack on Iran. Military escalation towards a regional war is part of the military scenario:
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has dispatched some 15,000 US troops in Kuwait. These consist of two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. Moreover, the US Navy is retaining two aircraft carriers with their respective strike groups on standby in the Arabian sea, the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John Stennis. (Debka, January 13, 2012). An impressive deployment of troops and advanced military hardware is unfolding. In recent developments, a third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is heading towards the Arabian Sea. Britain's Royal Navy has dispatched her newest and most advanced warship, Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, "which has a “stealth” design to help avoid detection by radar". France has sent its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.
US-Israel Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously. Meanwhile, The Islamic Republic of Iran is also on a war footing. Iran's Armed Forces is in an advanced stage of preparedness to defend the country's borders as well as retaliate against a US-Israel led attack. Iran has completed a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz in December. It has now announced that it is planning new naval drills codenamed "The Great Prophet", which are slated to take place in February.
Iranian Missile Tests The crucial question: Is the Pentagon seeking to deliberately trigger a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Triggering a War Pretext Incident: Provoking Iran to "Throw the First Punch" Is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice one or more vessels of the Fifth Fleet, resulting in extensive casualties among soldiers and sailors, with a view to mustering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense? As documented by Richard Sanders, the strategy of triggering a war pretext incident has been used throughout American military history.
Pearl Harbor stands out as the casus belli, the pretext and justification for America's entry into World War II. President Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by Japan and did nothing to prevent it. At a November 25 1941 meeting of FDR’s war council, "Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: 'The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.'” (See Patrick Buchanan, Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor? Global Research, December 7, 2011).
According to Professor Francis Boyle with reference to the ongoing showdown between the US Navy and Iran in the Persian Gulf: "Once again, it looks to me like what FDR did in 1941 when he sacrificed the Pacific Fleet and its men at Pearl Harbor—except for the carriers—in order to get the USA into World War II despite the fervent desire of the American People and Congress to stay out. Déjà vu all over again. Back to the Future " (Francis Boyle, January 13, 2011, email communication to author) Apart from the "incident" whereby the enemy is incited to "throw the first punch", "thematic justifications" are used to demonize the enemy and justify a casus belli. WMD and regime change in the case of Iraq (2003), support to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks in the case of Afghanistan (2001), "regime change" and "democratization" as in the cases of Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011). The thematic justifications to wage war on Iran include the following:
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States In case of a war with Iran, NATO member states as well as NATO partners of the "Mediterranean Dialogue" including the Five GCC Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would be involved. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have a formidable weapons arsenal of F-15 combat planes, patriot missiles, Apache helicopters and warships (Made in America), which would be used against Iran on behalf of the US led coalition. (see The Gulf Military Balance in 2010: An Overview | Center for Strategic and International Studies) The US has more than 30 military bases and facilities including its naval base in Bahrain, US Central command (CENTCOM) headquarters in Qatar, not to mention its military installations in Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan (see maps) * US military base or facility surrounding Iran From Washington's standpoint, Saudi Arabia's Royal Air Force is meant to act as a proxy for the USAF, operating on the principle of "interoperability". It should, nonetheless, be emphasised that there is reluctance within the ruling Saudi and Gulf States elites, to actively participating in a regional war, which would inevitably lead to Iranian retaliatory aerial attacks. Escalation: Towards a Broader Regional War If aerial attacks were to be launched, Iran would retaliate with missile attacks directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has an advanced Russian S 300 air defense system. It is equipped with medium and long range missile capabilities: The Shahab 3 and Sejjil missiles have a range of approximately 2,000 km, enabling them to strike targets in Israel. The Ghadr 1 has a range of 1,800 km. (See Haaretz, September 28, 2009) The war with Iran would not be limited to aerial bombardments. A land war could follow with Turkey playing a strategic military role on behalf of the US-Israel led coalition. Turkey's ground forces are of the order of 500,000. Iran's are of a similar order of magnitude: 465,000 regular forces. Turkish forces would be deployed in border areas with Iran as well as in Northern Syria. Iran's Air Force and Navy personnel are respectively of the order of 52,000 and 28,000. (see Table below) In turn, Russia has a naval base in Southern Syria and military cooperation agreements with both Syria and Iran, involving the presence of Russian military advisers. Russia is deploying warships out of its naval base in Tartus including aircraft carrying missile cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov. "The deployment ... follows the US move to station the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group" off the Syrian coastline. (See M. K. Badrakumar, Russia deploying warships in Syria - Indian Punchline, November 21, 2011)
In a scenario of military escalation, Iranian troops and/or Special Forces would cross the border into Afghanistan and Iraq. From the three existing war theaters: Afghanistan -Pakistan (Af-Pak), Iraq, Palestine, the onslaught of a war on Iran would lead to an integrated regional war. The entire Middle East-Central Asian region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to China's Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan would flare up, from the tip of the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea basin. The Caucasus and Central Asia: Competing Military Alliances What would be the involvement of America's "partners" in the Caucasus, namely Georgia and Azerbaijan? (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Iran War Theater's "Northern Front": Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran, Global Research, April 9, 2007). In Azerbaijan, the government has recently distanced itself from Washington, and has turned down its participation in joint military exercises with the US. The bilateral US-Azerbaijan strategic agreement is said to be stagnating:
In contrast, the Georgian government is directly supporting America's war effort against Iran. In recent developments, the Pentagon is sponsoring the construction of makeshift US military hospitals in Georgia to be used in the eventuality of a war with Iran. ( Readies for War On Iran: US Builds Military Hospitals in Georgia, Global Research, January 10, 2012)
What the military hospitals project conveys is that the Pentagon has already established detailed logistics pertaining to the transfer of wounded US servicemen from the Iran battlefield to nearby military hospitals in Georgia. These advanced preparations suggest that war plans are at a very advanced stage and that scenarios pertaining to military casualties have been established. Military Alliances: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO The countervailing military alliance to the US-NATO-Israel axis is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as the overlapping Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The SCO includes Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The SCO includes seven former Soviet republics including Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Iran has observer status in the SCO. Uzbekistan withdrew from the NATO sponsored GUUAM military cooperation agreement. In 2005, it formally evicted the US from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2 (U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan, Washington Post, July 30, 2005). Of significance, in the Kyrgyz Republic, the new elected President Almazbek Atambayev (November 2011) stated that he intends to close down the US military base at Manas when the lease expires. (Kyrgyzstan Says United States’ Manas Air Base Will Close - NYTimes.com, November, 1, 2011) What these developments suggest is that the former Soviet republics of Central Asia have reaffirmed their relationship to Moscow, which in turn has led the consolidation of the SCO-CSTO military bloc.
The participation of Russia and China on the side of Iran is already de facto in view of prevailing military cooperation agreements. the transfer of weapons systems and technology to Iran, as well as the presence of Russian military advisers, training personnel, in both Iran and Syria. Moreover, Iran has Observer status in the SCO Russia and China are fully aware that a war on Iran is a stepping stone towards a broader war. Both countries are targeted by the US and NATO. Russia is threatened on its border with the European Union, with US-NATO AMD targetted at major Russian cities. With the exception of its Northern frontier, China is surrounded by US military bases, from the Korean peninsula to the South China Sea. Both China and Russia are perceived by Washington as a "Global Threat". China has been the target of veiled threats by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The recent National Defense Review announced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, envisages an expanded defense budget, with a view to containing Russia and China. In recent development, Russia newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin has warned Washington and Brussels that "Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,” Spiralling US Defense Spending: The Pentagon's "Big Dog" Ideology Washington's objective is to establish global military dominance. While the "war on terrorism" and the containment of "rogue states" still constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia have been tagged in US military and National Security documents as potential enemies:
How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony? Through spiralling defense spending and the continued growth of the US weapons industry, requiring a massive compression of all categories of government expenditure. Implemented at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in American history, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds this new undeclared arms race with China and Russia, with vast amounts of tax dollars channelled to America's defense contractors.
This "Big Dog" ideology, a term coined by the Pentagon, is a precondition for the "Globalization of War". It is a diabolical agenda of enhancing America's killing machine by dismantling social programs and impoverishing people across the US.
Related Articles
ANNEX THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: MILITARY CAPABILITIES Total Population: 77,891,220 [2011] Available Manpower: 46,247,556 [2011] Fit for Military Service: 39,556,497 [2011] Of Military Age: 1,392,483 [2011] Active Military: 545,000 [2011] Active Reserve: 650,000 [2011] LAND ARMY Total Land Weapons: 12,393 Tanks: 1,793 [2011] Armoured Personnel Carrier/Infantry Fighting Vehicles (APC/IFV): 1,560 [2011] Towed Artillery: 1,575 [2011] SPGs: 865 [2011] MLRSs: 200 [2011] Mortars: 5,000 [2011] Anti Tank (AT) Weapons: 1,400 [2011] Anti-Aerial (AA) Weapons: 1,701 [2011] Logistical Vehicles: 12,000 AIR POWER Total Aircraft: 1,030 [2011] Helicopters: 357 [2011] Serviceable Airports: 319 [2011] NAVAL POWER Total Navy Ships: 261 Merchant Marine Strength: 74 [2011] Major Ports & Terminals: 3 Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2011] Destroyers: 3 [2011] Submarines: 19 [2011] Frigates: 5 [2011] Patrol Craft: 198 [2011] Mine Warfare Craft: 7 [2011] Amphibious Assault Craft: 26 [2011] SOURCES: http://www.iraniandefence.com/iran-army/ and http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iran Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America's "War on Terrorism"(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific. He has acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. |
|