Towards a World War III Scenario? The Role of Israel in Triggering Attacks On Iran
By: Michel Chossudovsky
Stockpiling and deployment of advanced weapons systems directed against Iran started after the bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003. Since the beginning, the war plans were led by the United States, in conjunction with NATO and Israel.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". Sources hinted that the U.S. military air strikes against Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the "shock and awe" bombing in Iraq in March 2003.
"American air strikes on Iran would be far beyond the reach of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the first day of air strikes against Iraq in 2003 (See Globalsecurity).
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration identified Iran and Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". Sources hinted that the U.S. military air strikes against Iran could involve a large scale deployment comparable to the "shock and awe" bombing in Iraq in March 2003.
"American air strikes on Iran would be far beyond the reach of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the first day of air strikes against Iraq in 2003 (See Globalsecurity).
"Theater Iran Near Term" (TIRRANT)
The code name given by U.S. military planners are TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term", simulations of attacks on Iran has already begun in May 2003 "when modelers and intelligence specialists gather data needed for battlefield-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. "((William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006).
The scenario identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg:
The scenario identified several thousand targets inside Iran as part of a "Shock and Awe" Blitzkrieg:
"Analysis of the so-called TIRANNT, for" Theater Iran Near Term, "was coupled with a mock scenario Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. At the same time the U.S. and UK planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game. Bush directed Command United States to formulate a strategic action plan for the global war attack attack Iran's weapons of mass destruction location. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war in the form of a plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that has now been confirmed by military sources [April 2006] in the form of draft .
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been doing checks, both scenarios the short and long term war with Iran, including all aspects of major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change. "(William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
... Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been doing checks, both scenarios the short and long term war with Iran, including all aspects of major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change. "(William Arkin, Washington Post, 16 April 2006)
Difference "battlefield scenario" in attacking Iran maximally have thought: "The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines United States have all prepared battle plans for four years, building bases and training to carry out" Operation Iranian Liberation . "Admiral Fallon, head of U.S. Central Command has recently received computerized plans TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term). "(New Statesman, February 19, 2007)
In 2004, formulated the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" large-scale military operation directed against Iran "are used to respond to a terrorist attack similar 9/11 in the United States" with the assumption that Tehran was behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states
In 2004, formulated the initial war scenarios under TIRANNT, Vice President Dick Cheney instructed USSTRATCOM to draw up a "contingency plan" large-scale military operation directed against Iran "are used to respond to a terrorist attack similar 9/11 in the United States" with the assumption that Tehran was behind the terrorist plot. The plan included the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states
"The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran using nuclear weapons as well as both conventional and tactical. On the inside Iran there are more than 450 important strategic targets, including numerous suspected targets as the development of a nuclear-weapons program. Many hard targets or far below the ground and can not be destroyed by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option will be destroyed. As in the case of Iraq, the response is less important whether Iran actually engaged in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved reportedly planning surprised the implications of what they are doing - that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack - but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing objections. "(Philip Giraldi, Deep Background, The American Conservative August 2005)
The Military Road Map: "First Iraq, then Iran"
The decision to target Iran under TIRANNT was part of the broader military planning of a sequence of military operations. It has been done under the Clinton administration, U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) has put together a "war plan" to invade first Iraq and then Iran. Access to Middle Eastern oil is a strategic objective other.
"The interests and broad national security objectives expressed in the President's National Security Strategy - the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman of the National Military Strategy - National Military Strategy (NMS) form the basis for the strategy war the United States Central Command (NSS) directs the implementation of dual containment strategy from rogue states such as Iraq and Iran as long as those countries pose a threat to U.S. interests, to other countries in the region, and includes its own nationals. Detention ganda designed to maintain the balance of power in the region without depending on either the Iraq or Iran. battlefield strategy against Iran is USCENTCOM is an interest-based and threat-focused. purpose of U.S. engagement, as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the vital interests of the United States in the region - that is not disturbed, the United States safer way Allied also access to Gulf oil. "(USCENTCOM, http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm # USPolicy, the link is no longer active, archived at http://tinyurl.com/37gafu9)
War in Iran is seen as part of a succession of military operations. According to (former) NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, the Pentagon's military road-map consisted of a sequence of countries: "Military operations five year plan [includes] ... a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran , Somalia and Sudan. "In "Winning Modern Wars" (page 130) General Clark states the following:
"When I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yeah, we're still on track against Iraq. But there's more. Said this is being discussed as part of a military operation five years, and there are seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan (See Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon, Global Research, July 23, 2006)
role of Israel
There is much debate about the role of Israel in initiating an attack against Iran.Israel is part of a military alliance. Tel Aviv is not a prime mover. Israel has no military agenda separate and distinct.Israel
is integrated into the "war plan for major combat operations" against
Iran formulated in 2006 by the United States Strategic Command
(USSTRATCOM). In
the context of large-scale military operation, a unilateral military
actions are not coordinated by one coalition partner, namely Israel,
from a military and strategic point of view is almost impossible. Israel is a de facto member of NATO. Any action by Israel would require a "green light" from Washington.An
attack by Israel could somehow be used as a "trigger mechanism" which
would unleash an all-out war against Iran, as well retaliation by Iran
directed against Israel.In
this case, there are indications that Washington might consider the
option of the initial attack Israel with (support of the United States)
and is not a United States-led military operation directed against Iran.
Israeli
attack - although the relationship is close to the Pentagon and NATO -
would be presented to public opinion as a unilateral decision by Tel
Aviv. This
will then be used by Washington to justify in the eyes of the
subjective world, in the form of military intervention the United States
and NATO with a view to "defending Israel", rather than attacking Iran.
In
a military cooperation agreement, whether in the United States and NATO
"obligated" to "defend Israel" if attacked by Iran and Syria.It
should be noted, in this regard, that at the beginning of Bush's second
term, (former) Vice President Dick Cheney hinted, strongly, that Iran
was "top of the list" of "rogue enemies" America, and that Israel would
declare "do bombing
for us ", without U.S. military involvement and without us pressing
their" to do "(See Michel Chossudovsky, Planned US-Israeli Attack on
Iran, Global Research, May 1, 2005): According to Cheney:
"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked ... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is to destroy Israel, Israel may decide to act early, and let the whole world to worry about resolving the diplomatic mess afterwards , "(Dick Cheney, quoted from MSNBC Interview, January 2005)
Commenting on the statement of the Vice President, the former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with a bit of fear that something will happen, yes: Cheney wants Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to act on behalf of the U.S. and "do it" for us.
"I think Iran is more ambiguous., And there is a problem there, certainly not tyranny; .. it is a nuclear weapon., And vice president today in a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it, but in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for Israel to do so. "
What
we are dealing with military operations along the United
States-NATO-Israel to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning
stage since 2004. Defense
officials, under Bush and Obama, has been working diligently with the
Israeli military and intelligence partners carefully identifying targets
inside Iran. In
practical military terms, any action by Israel should be planned and
coordinated at the highest levels of the United States-led coalition.The
attack by Israel would also require coordinated logistical support
US-NATO, especially with regard to Israel's air defense system, which
since January 2009 is fully integrated into the United States and NATO. (See
Michel Chossudovsky, Unusually Large U.S. Weapons Shipment to Israel:
Are the U.S. and Israel Planning a Broader Middle East War? Global
Research, January 11.2009)Israel's
X band radar system established in early 2009 with U.S. technical
support has "integrate Israel's missile defense system with global
missile detection network of the United States [Base-Space], which
includes satellites, Aegis ships on the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and
Red Sea and Patriot radar and a shore-based. " (Defense Talk.com, January 6, 2009)What this means is that Washington ultimately decide what should be done. United
States is better than Israel controls the air defense system that: ''
This means stick with using the U.S. radar system, '"said Pentagon
spokesman Geoff Morrell." So this is not something we give or sell it to
Israel and it is something reasonable would require U.S. personnel to operate it. '"(Quoted from Israel National News, January 9, 2009).United States Air Force Air Defense system oversees Israel, which is integrated into the global system of the Pentagon. In other words, Israel can not launch a war against Iran without Washington's approval. Because
of the importance of law called "Green Light" in the U.S. Congress
sponsored by the Republican party under House Resolution 1553, which
explicitly supports an Israeli attack on Iran:
"The legislation proposed by Louie Gohmert, Republican of Texas and 46 colleagues, support the use of" all necessary means Israel "against Iran" including the use of military force .... "We have to do this. We need to show support for Israel. We must stop playing games with the important ally in the region difficult "'(See Webster Tarpley, Fidel Castro warns of imminent Nuclear War; Admiral Mullen Threatens Iran; US-Israel Vs. Iranian-Hezbollah Confrontation Builds On, Global Research, August 10 , 2010)
In practice, the proposed legislation is "Green Light" to the White House and the Pentagon rather than to Israel. This is an agreement for a U.S. sponsored war against Iran which uses Israel as the foundation launched a military campaign accordingly. It also serves as a justification for war in order to defend Israel.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext for war, in response to the alleged attack Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and / or the triggering of hostilities on Israel's border with Lebanon. What is important to understand is that an "incident" small can be used as an excuse to trigger a major military operation against Iran.
Recognized by U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the United States) will be Iran's first target of military retaliation. In general, the people of Israel will become a victim of intrigue Washington and their own government. Yes, in this case, it is imperative that Israel strongly oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
In this context, Israel could indeed provide the pretext for war, in response to the alleged attack Hamas or Hezbollah attacks and / or the triggering of hostilities on Israel's border with Lebanon. What is important to understand is that an "incident" small can be used as an excuse to trigger a major military operation against Iran.
Recognized by U.S. military planners, Israel (rather than the United States) will be Iran's first target of military retaliation. In general, the people of Israel will become a victim of intrigue Washington and their own government. Yes, in this case, it is imperative that Israel strongly oppose any action by the Netanyahu government to attack Iran.
Global Warfare: The Role of the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)
Global military operations are coordinated out of U.S. Strategic Command Headquarters (USSTRATCOM) from Offutt Air Force base in Nebraska, in cooperation with the regional command, Fighter Command Integrated (eg U.S. Central Command in Florida, which is responsible for the Middle East and Asia , see map below) as well as coalition command units in Israel, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and Diego Garcia, the U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean. Military planning and decision-making at the state level-NATO ally of the United States are performed by individuals as well "partner nations" is integrated into a global military design including the arming of space.
Under the new mandate, USSTRATCOM has a responsibility for "overseeing a global strike plan" consisting of both conventional and nuclear weapons. In military jargon, which is slated to play the role of "a global integrator with Space Operations mission load; Operation Information; Integrated Missile Defense; Global Command & Control; Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance; Global Strike, and Strategic deterrence ...."
USSTRATCOM Responsibilities include: "Leading, planning, implementation and strategic deterrence operations" at the global level, "synchronizing planning and global missile defense operations", "synchronizing regional war plans", etc.. USSTRATCOM is the lead agency in coordinating modern warfare.
In January 2005, at the beginning of deployment and military buildup aimed at Iran, USSTRATCOM was identified as "Peramg Command for integration and synchronization of the Department of Defense of the United States in the fight against weapons of mass destruction." (Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran, Global Research, January 3, 2006).
Does this mean that a large-scale coordinated attack against Iran, including a variety of scenarios escalation in and beyond the Middle East region and the wider Central Asia will be coordinated by USSTRATCOM.
Map: US Central Command's Area of Jurisdiction
