U.S. prepares Iran strike

German media: U.S. prepares Iran strike
Submitted by davidswanson on Sat, 2005-12-31 20:00. Media
By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Editor

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.

The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted "NATO intelligence sources" who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This "all options are open" line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.

But the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes "What is new here is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year."

cont'd

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6213

To dispatch them far and wide to give certain places a head's up?

nukes? Yeah, right, like when he said the same thing about Iraq. I think brush might press the mysterious red button.

* probably can't contain his glee and is rubbing his sweaty palms together just thinking about it. Wait! That's not *, but Crashcart.

Iran may indeed want/need nukes because they are also about to become a great deal more powerful/rich on several fronts and how are they to protect it or have a seat at the BIG international table without some nuke blue chips to play? But the bigger chip is their soon-to-be-opened euro-based oil Bourse.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.

In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

cont'd

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

_________________________________________________________

Oil bourse closer to reality

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - ©2004 IranMania.com

LONDON, Dec 28 (IranMania) - Iran will move a step closer to establishing its much-publicized oil exchange next week, when the Oil Ministry and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Finance are set to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which will set the ground for the high-profile initiative.

Hossein Talebi, the National Iranian Oil Company's director for information technology affairs, told Fars news agency that the project would enter the executive phase immediately after the MoU is signed.

The official further said that petrochemicals, crude oil and oil and gas products will be traded at the petroleum exchange.

"The oil exchange would strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region," he said, adding that most deals will be conducted through the Internet.
Talebi said the bourse could also help develop petrochemical industry.

Iran announced in September its petroleum exchange will become operational by March 2006.


cont'd

http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=28176&NewsKind=Business%20%26%20Economy

______________________________________________________________________


Killing the dollar in Iran
By Toni Straka

Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click here if you are interested in contributing.

Could the proposed Iranian oil bourse (IOB) become the catalyst for a significant blow to the influential position the US dollar enjoys? Manifold supply fears have driven the price of crude oil to its recent high of US$67.10 - only a notch below its highest price in inflation-adjusted dollar terms. With the world facing a daily bill of roughly $5.5 billion for crude oil at current price levels, it becomes apparent that sellers and purchasers of the black gold are looking into all ways that could lead to a financial improvement on their respective sides.

Non-US-dollar holders so far have been the victim of additional transaction costs in the oil trade. The necessary conversion of local currencies into oil-buying greenbacks can be considered a hidden tax, charged and enjoyed by the international banking sector. The IOB, by eliminating this transaction cost, will become a factor that could unsettle the dollar's dominant position. While the worldwide bottleneck of inadequate refining facilities and partly dramatic declines in production - for example in the North Sea - are two factors that cannot be eliminated in the short term, there is one area left which could result in smiling faces of oil producers as well as most buyers. ...cont'd

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GH26Dj01.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Iran - a threat to the petrodollar?
By Emilie Rutledge


Thursday 03 November 2005, 13:10 Makka Time, 10:10 GMT


Iran's decision to set up an oil and associated derivatives market next year has generated a great deal of interest.

This is primarily because of Iran's reported intention to invoice energy contracts in euros rather than dollars.

The contention that this could unseat the dollar's dominance as the de facto currency for oil transactions may be overstated, but this has not stopped many commentators from linking America's current political disquiet with Iran to the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse (IOB).

The proposal to set up the IOB was first put forward in Iran's Third Development Plan (2000-2005). Mohammad Javad Assemipour, who heads the project, has said that the exchange will strive to make Iran the main hub for oil deals in the region and that it should be operational by March 2006.

cont'd
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C1C0C9B3-DDA9-42E2-AE9C-B7CDBA08A6E9.htm

_______________________________________________________

The Iranian Threat: The Bomb or the Euro?

By Dr. Elias Akleh

03/24/05 "AMIN" - - Iran does not pose a threat to the United State because of its nuclear projects, its WMD, or its support to "terrorists organizations" as the American administration is claiming, but in its attempt to re-shape the global economical system by converting it from a petrodollar to a petroeuro system. Such conversion is looked upon as a flagrant declaration of economical war against the US that would flatten the revenues of the American corporations and eventually might cause an economic collapse.

In June of 2004 Iran declared its intention of setting up an international oil exchange (a bourse) denominated in the Euro currency. Many oil-producing as well as oil-consuming countries had expressed their welcome to such petroeuro bourse. The Iranian reports had stated that this bourse may start its trade with the beginning of 2006. Naturally such an oil bourse would compete against London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as against the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), both owned by American corporations.

Oil consuming countries have no choice but use the American Dollar to purchase their oil, since the Dollar has been so far the global standard monetary fund for oil exchange. This necessitates these countries to keep the Dollar in their central banks as their reserve fund, thus strengthening the American economy. But if Iran — followed by the other oil-producing countries — offered to accept the Euro as another choice for oil exchange the American economy would suffer a real crisis. We could witness this crisis at the end of 2005 and beginning of 2006 when oil investors would have the choice to pay $57 a barrel of oil at the American (NYMEX) and at London’s (IPE), or pay 37 Euros a barrel at the Iranian oil bourse. Such choice would reduce trade volumes at both the Dollar-dependent (NYMEX) and the (IPE).

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8354.htm

___________________________________________________________________


Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse

by William R. Clark
(Friday August 05 2005)

"A successful Iranian bourse will solidify the petroeuro as an alternative oil transaction currency, and thereby end the petrodollar's hegemonic status as the monopoly oil currency. Therefore, a graduated approach is needed to avoid precipitous U.S. economic dislocations."


"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."

-- President George W. Bush, February 2005

Contemporary warfare has traditionally involved underlying conflicts regarding economics and resources. Today these intertwined conflicts also involve international currencies, and thus increased complexity. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran's nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro" system for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, military operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of 'petrodollar recycling' and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.

It is now obvious the invasion of Iraq had less to do with any threat from Saddam's long-gone WMD program and certainly less to do to do with fighting International terrorism than it has to do with gaining strategic control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market. Throughout 2004 information provided by former administration insiders revealed the Bush/Cheney administration entered into office with the intention of toppling Saddam.<1><2> Candidly stated, 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' was a war designed to install a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, establish multiple U.S military bases before the onset of global Peak Oil, and to reconvert Iraq back to petrodollars while hoping to thwart further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency ( i.e. "petroeuro").<3> However, subsequent geopolitical events have exposed neoconservative strategy as fundamentally flawed, with Iran moving towards a petroeuro system for international oil trades, while Russia evaluates this option with the European Union.

cont'd


http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/17451

Preparatory measures are already in place to sell oil in euros instead of dollars. “When such a measure is taken, the United States would soon realize that it is not the one who can always inflict economic damages on the Islamic Republic and that Iran can also get even with it. ” says an Irani official.

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=260851

More in post #11.….

Moreover, Syria and Iran have a pact to defend one another in the event of US intervention. Exactly how many damned multiple conflicts do those neoconster assholes believe we can handle? Will the neoconsters' arrogance and delusional faith in their 'supremist" ideology destroy this nation? Will we allow them to destroy our nation?

See "The Coming IRAN CRISIS" for details:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=51519&mesg_id=51966

Will the PNAC ideology destroy the nation? Hell, it has the potential of destroying the world!

Bummer.

Maybe, the lesson of greed will take a more lasting hold, this third time, bloody and sacrificial round.

I am at the point where, I let go of those who refuse to LEARN from history (whether by ignorance or arrogance or oppression or lot) and live for what is, today. FUCK THOSE ASSHOLES!!! WE ALL HAVE A LIFE IN SPITE OF THEM!!!

Yup. That's what I have to say,...we have a life in spite of those assholes.

When they know Bush went to war with Iraq based on nothing? It's like he has asked the world to take up arms and fight.

Now we know why Cheney, et al, have said troop numbers in Iraq will go down. They have other plans.

This dumbass and his cronies won't be happy until they have an excuse to nuke someone. Makes me want to crawl in a hole.

You said, "How can anyone blame another country for getting nukes ready? When they know Bush went to war with Iraq based on nothing?"

What the HELL else are the Iranians supposed to do???? Junior keeps telling us he "has to protect us". Well, hell, the Iranian leaders have to protect THEIR people, too.

And to our shame, our country is now a threatening terrorist nation. Because of the demented, boozy, George W. Bush.

circumstances???
We, the rich, fat, arrogant, "screw international laws we ARE the law" America are giving any nation we have called among the axis of 'evil' absolutely NO CHOICE-

We are bringing OURSELVES down- from within. Just as the historians of old predicted- But they didn't know we'd take most of the life on earth with us.

We are headed for hell, if this isn't stopped-

us and then proceeded to occupy us? We'd be forming an underground, right now, to fight them--with "IED's", if necessary!

And if there were any secret forums for us to communicate, we'd be hurrah-ing each other every time someone reported, "Got another truckload of 'em on the La Guardia Airport road today!"

And even the paunchy keyboard commandos of right-wingnuttia would be trying to get in on the action.

And yet we wonder at the "insurgents" in Iraq...

Iran is China's main oil source. They will not like that.

selling to us. I mean we have very little in the way of a manufacturing sector. Where would we get our steal? Where would we get our clothes? Where would we get our cheap electronics?

That's what they're up to.

or as much sense as winning the Cold War. Japan didn't win WWII by crushing our fleet at Pearl Harbor, and the U.S. didn't slow a worldwide nuclear buildup by winning the Cold War.

At least most Republicans admit that.."terrorism will always be a problem!!":crazy:

Iran is trying to “play nice” and quell jittery nerves by inviting the U.S. to bid on constructing its nuclear power plants. The U.S. has responded with stony silence while Israel threatens a military strike even though “IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access and have found no hard evidence, to date, that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: www.GlobalSecurity.org)”

http://www.hanfordnews.com/news/2005/story/7280850p-7192722c.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Iran has taken the position that “If pressured by America, (it) will use its full might to endanger America's interests."

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=55848

It would make sense for them to cut oil production in their own country and stir up the resistance fighters in Iraq (as the U.S. claims is already occurring) to disrupt oil production there as well.

They’ll also implement the preparatory measures already in place to sell oil in euros instead of dollars. “When such a measure is taken, the United States would soon realize that it is not the one who can always inflict economic damages on the Islamic Republic and that Iran can also get even with it. ” says an Irani official.

http://www.mehrnews.com/en/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsID=260851

Next on the list of “American interests” is Israel which has a long history of pre-emptive war. If Israel to attacks Iran as it‘s been threatening, it must cross US-occupied Iraqi air space and in doing so make the U.S. complicit by virtue of acquiescence. Iran will likely retaliate against Israel and U.S. forces with its Sunburn missiles - “the most lethal missile in the world today.”

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution –– not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

The Sunburn’s combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Furthermore, US ships in the Gulfs northern shore will be within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced, unstoppable, Russian-made Yakhonts missiles. Protection from the Yakhont antiship missile does not exist.

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

Iran is the home of China's largest energy-related investments so a conflict with Iran will not only bring China to the table, but its Russian ally as well. ”The Putin government has consistently maintained that Russia would not support UN Security Council resolutions that condemn Iran's nuclear energy program or apply economic sanctions against Iran.

“Beijing has echoed Moscow's opposition to UN action against Iran. After concluding the historic gas and oil deal between China and Iran in October 2004, China's Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing announced that China would not support UN Security Council action against Iran's nuclear energy program. Opposition in Moscow and Beijing to UN action against Iran is significant because both countries hold UN Security Council veto power. “

“To China and Russia, Washington's "democratic reform program" is a thinly disguised method for the US to militarily dispose of unfriendly regimes in order to ensure the country's primacy as the world's sole superpower. The China-Iran-Russia alliance can be considered as Beijing's and Moscow's counterpunch to Washington's global ambitions. From this perspective, Iran is integral to thwarting the Bush administration's foreign policy goals. This is precisely why Beijing and Moscow have strengthened their economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. It is also why Beijing and Moscow are providing Tehran with increasingly sophisticated weapons.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html

With Iran on the PNAC “hit list”, Israel and Iran locked in a stand-off and refusing to back down, and Russia and China waiting in the wings ready to protect their own interests and ally, we are quickly coming to the Brink of Disaster.
==============================


Up-date - January 04, 2006:

Iran to resume Nuke research with Russia/

TEHRAN/VIENNA: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered resumption of the country's research programmes on nuclear fuel cycles.

"The nuclear research programme will start and we have already delivered a relevant letter to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretary General Mohammad ElBaradei," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in parliament on Tuesday.

Fars further quoted Ahmadinejad as saying that whatever country suspected Iran of military misuse of its nuclear programme would be welcome to participate in the nuclear projects.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1357963,curpg-1.cms


Iran looks to upgrade Shihab-3 missile

Iran harbors ambitions of developing a space program, but is currently concentrating on upgrading and extending the range of its Shahab-3 missile, which has a range of 750 miles - capable of reaching Israel, according to the latest western intelligence assessment of the country's weapons programs, published by the London-based Guardian on Wednesday.

The 55-page intelligence assessment, dated July 1 2005, draws upon material gathered by British, French, German and Belgian intelligence agencies, the Guardian reported.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3194836,00.html
==============

I'd be surprised if Iran isn't attacked sometime between now and May.

this economic time bomb without the backing of China and Russia...and perhaps, nuke technology already in it's back pocket. That is where Saddam Hussein was, perhaps, too hasty when he announced a switch to the Euro. Or maybe he was the carrot to lure us in.

So where does Europe stand? They would gain economically in the short run from such a move to a euro-based currency exchange. But is it in their long term interest to have such powerful economic and military neighbors as China and Iran and Russia?

but I think Europe, along with the rest of the world, would rather enjoy having Russia and China "humble" the U.S. Russia is the second largest oil exporter in the world, so it's not likely that Europe would feel any long term effects if the MidEast oil supply was curtailed due to heightened military conflict in the region.

I think when Sadaam switched to Euro's, it was his "pay-back" for a decade of crippling sanctions. His mistake was to be unaware of the PNAC's Grand Plan to steal the WH and then come after him. Of course, none of us were aware of it back then either.

due to the pressures coming from Iran, China, Eurasian pipelines, etc. But that too is pure speculation.

Turkey is a major piece in this puzzle, and a bit of an enigma as regards their intentions as far as I can tell.

You are assuming Europe is unconcerned about 'aggressive agendas' coming out of those three up and coming powers? Russia might like to reclaim the parts of Europe/Eurasia it has lost, and there are all kinds of lovely resources in Europe that would be ripe for the picking if the U.S. was a declining or too thinly spread out military power and economically crippled ally. So I doubt their only concerns are around a steady oil supply and economic boost of the euro. I know I would be looking over my shoulder all the time.

,...

Was he forced to deal with major retaliation from those regions as BLOWBACK from prior adminstrations: HELL YES!!!!

He managed. People reached for peace rather than barbaric survival.

Now, peace is NOT possible,...in this RULE OF FORCE and bullydom administration which is creating an INFLATION OF CONFLICT!!!!

May they die empty and painfully and scorned. Assholes!!!!

They're at the tender mercies of the superpowers, no?

was working to encourage the Iraqis to instigate changes from within. (Iraq Liberation Act) I doubt he would have staged an all-out invasion.

Deeply scary. The new president is nuttier than Bush. Ahmadinejad said that he was surrounded by a "white light" while he gave a speech in front of the UN, and that his words were so compelling that no one blinked for 20 minutes. He is also devoted to a religious figure called the "12th Iman" and is convinced that he will usher in the Iman's second coming. According to Muslim legend, the Iman will return at the end of time to create an era of Islamic divine justice. He's also rapidly anti-Semetic & has said that the Holocaust didn't happen. All this creates a picture of a man who is a religious fanatic, and a meglomaniac. (Sound familiar?) Not only wouldn't this guy back down from a nuclear standoff, he'd probably welcome it as a final battle against evil. Bush, of course, would feel the same. These two together are a whole lot alike & it scares me to think what they could lead us to.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1322262&page=1

the spice MUST flow...

as a result Iran must go...with the flow

HO HO HO!!!

Aye, aye, aye aye.

,...they trick this country and the world into a gosh-damn blood-bath!!!

Arrest those bastards for spying on Americans: a F-E-L-O-N-Y and antithetical to their oathes to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION!!!

:grr: :mad: :grr: :mad:

This means "closer China-Kazakh-Russia energy cooperation--the nightmare scenario of Washington.":




A must read:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2006/0103c.html

Looking rather bleak for the American oil cartel, eh? So when do you think they'll begin releasing all the research, patents and innovation for alternative energy they have acquired and sat on, lo these many years?

LOL, I thought I was the only one thinking that! Heck, I hope they've 'acquired and sat on the research, patents and innovation for alternative energy lo these many years', despite how conflicted and angry it all makes me. Otherwise, life as we know it, or actually, life for our offspring, is screwed, as we are so dependent upon their products.

I have mixed feelings about Mike Ruppert, but I just read a summary of his along similar lines (can't access the whole story--cause I'm not a subscriber):

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/010306_end_grid_summary.shtml

hint, hint.;-)

Maybe that's why Bush's ranch is outfitted with sustainable technology...

I would like to read it in its entirety...

Anyway, back to your original point, from a strategic, albeit selfish and capitalistic, standpoint it would make sense for them to milk the oil industry (i.e. us, that is, as the consumers addicted to the oil) for all its worth before introducing alternative energy (assuming they already have a leg up on the matter, that is). Scum bags that they are and all. Again, I just hope someone with power, brains, clout and money actually had the for thought to do as you said. Surely, they can't have just ignored the pending obvious disaster all this time...could they have?

When I read Kerry/Edwards energy plan, it seemed so inclusive of 'the people,' you know, little folks like us participating with the big guys to make a change. *Sigh* I try hard to do my part, but let's face it, without the big guys who run the show, it's an uphill battle, and they know it.

It's a very complex situation and I have never had less faith in OUR leaders to make the right decision for the right reasons.
I'm sure there are many ways for this situation to play out, none of which is appealing in the short term or the long term. And there are plenty of problems that nature can and likely will throw into the equation in the form of costly and deadly disasters which can turn everything upside down without a moment's notice....as we've already discovered.

If we try to invade Iran I think we will enter into a war that will make WWII pale in comparison.

If we DON'T manage to control Iran then it would seem we are faced (at least initially) with serious economic collapse and impotence like we've never experienced. And that would weaken us militarily too. Difficult as this would be, it seems the lesser of the two evils but leaves other allies vulnerable as well as us.

Other options? Is the world ready for more enlightened options that don't involve death and destruction?

I don't know enough about all the various players and pieces to even guess. But folks....I think this is it. Destiny time. What do we want the outcome to be? Now that we are in this position, how should we play it and what are the consequences?

Interview with Michel Chossudovsky - Jan. 2, 2006 - Monday
Brownbagger

Programme, Co-op radio, CFRO 102.7 FM, Vancouver, B.C.,
Canada

Interviewer: Don Nordin
Guest: Michel Chossudovsky

I have on the line today Michel Chossudovsky,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky and
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ONE311A.html.

He is a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, and we
will basing the programme today on an article that he has
recently written (entitled "The Anglo-American War of Terror
- An Overview") that is on the website:
http://globalresearch.ca and it centers around the problems
in the Mid East particularly (in) Iran. Welcome to the
programme, today, Michel.

MC. Well, it's a pleasure to be on the programme. Greetings and
best wishes to everybody in British Columbia.

And you wanted to focus on the issue of Iran. Now, it seems
like we are looking at a situation building up with Iran and
it is centered around the terrorism, used as a pretext for
this agenda that they are building up, this global
domination agenda.

Q. Do you want to just get into that a bit, Michel, and
maybe you could talk around the issue of the imminent war
against Iran?

MC. For the last year or so, the United States, Israel and
Turkey have been preparing an aerial bombing of Iran. This
went into the planning stage back in November of 2004. In
other words, it's over a year now and essentially this
operation is using the pretext of Iran's nuclear programme
to bomb its nuclear facilities. In fact, what is actually
being planned is a nuclear war and that nuclear war has
nothing to do with Iran. It has to do with nuclear weapons,
which are slated to be used by the United States and Israel
and I have looked into the various documents behind this.

We are not talking about surgical strikes. That's what's
being presented to public opinion - that the United States
is going to embark on surgical strikes directed against Iran
with a view to making the world safer and it's all based on
the idea that Israel is threatened and so on and so forth.
In fact, what is being planned is an all out nuclear war
using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. And this is
something, which is not widely known, although it's
confirmed in a number of military documents. (The air
assault) would use tactical nuclear weapons, which have an
explosive capacity between 1/3, and 6 times the Hiroshima
bomb.

I should mention that these tactical nuclear weapons, which
are often referred to as 'mini-nukes,' are now in a sense
re-classified - in fact they are considered as conventional
weapons and the distinction between conventional and nuclear
weapons has been blurred following a decision in the U.S.
Senate, December 2003, which essentially allows for these
so-called mini nukes to be used in conventional war theatres
and in fact, the senate decision was reached after a
propaganda campaign waged by the Pentagon, which enlisted
nuclear scientists to the fact these nuclear bombs were
harmless to civilians, quote, unquote. That's exactly the
term they used, that these nuclear weapons are "harmless to
civilians" because the explosion is underground, and the
system of delivery would be very similar to the conventional
bunker buster bombs.

But what is now very disturbing is that actually the
timeline for this operation has already been announced -
March of 2006. In other words, in the next three months.
This (timeline) has been confirmed by the Israelis. Prime
Minister Sharon has made the statement. His political
opponents, in particular Benjamin Netanyahu, have confirmed
that they are also in agreement with this posture - that
they will wage surgical strikes against Iran. But if you
look at in a broader context, you will realize that this is
not strictly an Israeli operation. It's an operation, which
involved the United States, Turkey, and Israel as the main
military actors but which is firmly by America's coalition
partners in NATO. In other words, NATO has given its
approval to this military operation. There are no
dissenting voices within the Atlantic military alliance as
occurred prior to the war in Iraq and in effect, I think
that there won't be many dissenting voices in the United
Nations Security Council, and eventually a pretext will be
built that Iran is a threat to global security in view of
its nuclear programme, and that is of course a very
controversial issue. But as to whether this is up for
civilian use or for military use, but there is no evidence
that Iran at this stage is developing nuclear weapons.

But what we're dealing with here is the fact that the United
States wants to launch a nuclear war. o.k.? And if it
launches a nuclear with Israel, what's going to happen is
this is going to affect a much broader region. The war is
going to extend to the entire Middle Eastern region; it's
going to lead to radioactive contamination over a large part
of that region and, in other words, if we thought we were in
a situation of chaos and war crimes in Iraq, we really
haven't seen what is planned ahead because this is a major
military operation which is being envisaged.

I have been reviewing a number of military documents to that
effect, and they are now talking about what is called
Concept Plan 8022. Now Concept Plan 8022 is a plan, which
would be implemented by US Strategic Command, which is
located at the Offutt Military Base in Nebraska.
Essentially, it's an air force base. And this Concept plan
essentially consists in what they call "global strike"; it
combines both conventional as well as nuclear strikes, and
it integrates the actions of the navy and the air force and
then of course, it would be implemented from US military
facilities in the Persian Gulf or in the Indian Ocean, in
particular, Diego Garcia, the military base, the extremely
large US facility strategically located in the Indian Ocean,
which is a joint navy/air force base in Diego Garcia, in the
Chagos Archipelago and from there they would implement the
aerial bombardments and also the missile attacks.

Cont'd

Transcript: http://rense.com/general69/nuke.htm