[NYTr] Chossudovsky on Bush Regime's War Plans Against Iran

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

"The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the
nature of the US military agenda. In the US, United for Peace and
Justice tacitly supports US foreign policy. It fails to recognize the
existence of an Iraqi resistance movement. Moreover, these same antiwar
organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the
implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran. More generally the
antiwar movement fails to address the existence of a broader Middle
East military agenda, a long-war. Its actions are piecemeal, focusing
on Afghanistan, Iraq  and Palestine without addressing the relationship
between these various war theaters."


Global Research - Sep 16, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6792


Bush Administration War Plans directed against Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

[Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle
East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.]

Quoting official sources, the Western media is now confirming, rather
belatedly, that the Bush Administration's war plans directed against
Iran are "for real" and should be taken seriously.

According to official statements, "punitive bombings" directed against
Tehran could be launched within the next few months.

The diplomatic mode has been switched off:  The Pentagon is said to be
"taking steps to ensure military confrontation with Iran" because
diplomatic initiatives have allegedly failed to reach a solution.

These diabolical statements come within barely a couple of weeks
following the release of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
report. The later confirms unequivocally that Iran's nuclear program is
of a civilian nature and that Iran has neither the intention nor the
capabilities to develop nuclear weapons:

    Article IV (1): These modalities cover all remaining issues and the
Agency [meaning IAEA] confirmed that there are no other remaining
issues and ambiguities regarding Iran's past nuclear program and
activities.

    Article IV (3): The Agency's delegation is of the view that the
agreement on the above issues shall further promote the efficiency of
the implementation of safeguards in Iran and its ability to conclude
the exclusive peaceful nature of the Iran's nuclear activities.

    Article IV (4): The Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion
of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran
and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use. (IAEA
Report, italics added)

At the same token, the IAEA report is a slap in the face for Washington.
It confirms the lack of legitimacy and criminal nature of US foreign
policy as well as Washington's resolve to violate international law:

    "The Bush administrations abrupt dismissal of last Thursdays IAEA
report is one more sign that Washington has no interest in a
diplomatic resolution to its confrontation with Tehran. Following
Bushs bellicose denunciations of Iran last week, the US has
reiterated its intention to push for tougher UN sanctions against
Tehran this month." (Peter Symond, Global Research, September 2007)

No Public Outcry

Despite the overtly aggressive nature of US statements, these war plans
directed against Iran, which in a real sense threaten the future of
humanity, are not the object of public concern or debate. A US sponsored
pre-emptive war, using thermonuclear weapons, which according to
"authoritative" scientific opinion (on contract to the Pentagon), are
"harmless to the surrounding civilian population" is simply not front
page news in relation to any other trivial topic.

The dangers of a broader Middle East war are downplayed or ignored by
the main anti-war coalitions. The proposed use of nuclear weapons in a
conventional war theater is not a matter for debate.

Moreover, the planned attacks on Iran and their various devastating
consequences are not being addressed by "progressive" civil society
organizations including the "Left", which tacitly considers The Islamic
Republic as a real threat to human rights. According to Jean Bricmont:

    "All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The
country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women,
to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large
part of the American "left". The issue of course is not whether Iran
is nice or not -according to our views -- but whether there is any
legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant
ideology of human rights has legitimized, especially on the left, the
right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time,
and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor
issue of international law."  (Jean Bricmont, Global Research,
September 2007)

Background of War Planning

For the last three years,  in several carefully documented articles,
Global Research has been reporting in detail on US sponsored war plans
directed against Iran. These war plans include the preemptive use of
thermonuclear weapons against Iran in retaliation for Tehran's alleged
non-compliance with the demands of the "international community".

War plans in relation to Iran have been an advanced stage of readiness
since mid 2005. Israel, Britain and NATO are part of the US led
coalition and are slated to play an active role in the military
operation.

The  first phase of these war plans was formulated initially in
mid-2003, under a Pentagon scenario entitled TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near
Term). The military build-up has occurred over a period of more than
three years.

In Summer 2006 as well as earlier this year, extensive war games were
conducted in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Israeli bombing of Lebanon in July 2006 was an integral part of the
broader military agenda. In recent developments, Israel has conducted
bombing raids inside Syrian territory visibly in an act of provocation.

Recent official statements by Washington confirm the broad nature of
these war plans:

    "Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that
President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place
America on the path to war with Iran, ...

    Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing
targets in Iran, ...

    Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has
begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead
to a military showdown with Iran.

    In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence
officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq -
arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on
Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

    A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western
intelligence agencies say armour-piercing projectiles used against
British and US troops are manufactured.

    The intelligence officer said that the US military has "two major
contingency plans" for air strikes on Iran.

    "One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is
for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all
of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than
2,000 targets." (quoted in The Sunday Telegraph, 16 September 2007)

US-NATO naval deployments are taking place in two distinct theaters: the
Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.

In recent developments, it is reported that two aircraft carrier strike
groups (USS Nimitz and USS Truman) are en route to the Persian Gulf to
join up with the USS Enterprise, which means that there will be, by late
September, three carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf.

According to military sources, the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike
Group took up position in late August opposite the Lebanese coastline.

The attacks on Iran are now officially supported by America's European
allies including France and Germany. France's Foreign Minister Bernard
Kouchner has called upon France to support the US war on Iran:

    "We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr
Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio. Mr Kouchner said
negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an
Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world"
.(quoted by BBC, 16 September 2007)

Britain is closely involved, despite denials at the diplomatic level.
Turkey occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an
extensive military cooperation agreement with Israel. NATO is formally
involved in liaison with Israel, with which it signed a military
framework agreement in November 2004.

While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both Iran and
Syria) are the main military actors, a number of other countries in the
region, allies of the US, including Georgia and Azerbaijan have been
enlisted.

There are indications from several media sources that Israel is also in
an advanced stage of military preparedness and would be involved in
carrying out part of the aerial bombardments. Syria and most probably
Lebanon would also be targeted.

Already in 2005, the Israeli Air Force had reached a state of
preparedness. Israeli air attacks of Iran's nuclear facility at Bushehr
had been contemplated using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster
bombs. The attack was planned to be carried out in three separate waves
"with the radar and communications jamming protection being provided by
U.S. Air Force AWACS and other U.S. aircraft in the area".

(See W Madsen, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

Escalation Scenarios

If this military operation were to be launched, the entire Middle East
Central Asian region would flare up.

The war would encompass an area extending from the Eastern Mediterranean
to China's Western frontier.

In this regard, US military planners have analyzed various "escalation
scenarios".

In fact, they expect the war to escalate. In other words, escalation,
namely retaliation by Iran is a desired objective. It is part of the
military agenda.

    "A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next
few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around
Iranian activities in Iraq....

    Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security
circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in
the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger
for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and even its armed
forces.  (Sunday Telegraph, op cit)

Iran Retaliates

The nature of Iran's retaliation should be understood. General David
Petraeus, who is responsible for managing the Iraq war theater, has
voiced his opposition to an attack on Iran.

    "Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush's senior Iraq commander, denounced the
Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq last week as he built support in
Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad." (Sunday Telegraph,
op cit)

General Petraeus is fully aware of the underlying implications for the
Iraq war theater. A war on Iran would immediately spill over into Iraq:

Iran is the third largest importer of Russian weapons systems after
India and China. In the course of the last five years, Russia has
supported Iran's ballistic missile technology, in negotiations reached
initially in 2001 under the presidency of Mohammed Khatami.

Iran tested three new types of land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles in
the context of its "Great Prophet II" military exercises last November.
These tests were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged
operation. According to a senior American missile expert,  "the
Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the
West had not known them to possess."

Tehran has the ability to retaliate and wage ballistic missile attacks
against US and coalition facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf
states. Israel could also be a potential target, if Israel were to be an
active partner in the bombing campaign.

Iranian ground troops could cross the border into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran's forces total about 350,000 active military personnel as well
350,000 reserve forces (Jane's Iran Profile).  The Iranian Army disposes
of some 2200 tanks. With these capabilities, in terms of military
personnel and hardware, Iran could potentially inflict significant
losses to US and coalition troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush-Cheney Military Appointments

Several key military appointments were made in recent months which tend
to reinforce Bush-Cheney control over the Military. Specifically, these
appointments pertain to the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commanders respectively of USCENTCOM,
USSTRATCOM and US Pacific Command. All three commanders recently
relinquished their respective positions.

These new appointments are crucial because USSTRATCOM, USCENTCOM and US
Pacific Command are slated to play key roles in the coordination and
implementation of the Iran military operation, in liaison with Israel
and NATO.

    1. Joint Chiefs of Staff

In May, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) General Peter Pace
was fired ("non-renewal"). General Pace, in recent months, had indicated
his disagreement with the Administration regarding  both Iraq and the
proposed attacks on Iran. General Pace stated (February 2007) that he
saw no firm evidence of  Tehran supplying weapons to Shiite militias
inside Iraq, which was being heralded by the Bush administration as a
justification for waging war on Iran:

    "[M]aybe that's why he's the outgoing chairman. Maybe that's why
they're not renewing him. Because ...He has seen no evidence that Iran
is fomenting unrest in Iraq that's causing Americans lives... " (Fox
News' Alan Colmes,  ox News,  June, 13, 2007),

General Peter Pace's term as Chairman of the JCS ends at the end of
September. Defense Secretary Gates' chosen successor Admiral Michael
Mullen,  formerly U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, is slated to replace
General Peter Pace as Chairman of the Joint chiefs of Staff.

Mullen's discourse is in marked contrast to that of General Peter Pace.
Mullen, who was in charge of coordinating 2006-2007 naval war games off
the Iranian coastline, has expressed an unbending commitment to "waging"
and "winning asymmetric wars", while also "protecting the United
States":

    "we must ensure we have the Battle Force, the people, and the combat
readiness we need to win our nation's wars...

    Our Navy is fighting the Global War on Terror while at the same time
providing a Strategic Reserve worldwide for the President and our
Unified and Combatant Commanders.... Simply reacting to change is no
longer an acceptable course of action if our Navy is to successfully
wage asymmetric warfare and simultaneously deter regional and
transnational threats (Statement, Senate Armed Services Committee, 7
May 2007)

Admiral Mullen's stance is in line with that of the Bush
Administration's key Neo-conservative ideologues. With regard to Iran,
echoing almost verbatim the stance of the White House, Admiral Mullen
considers that it is "unacceptable that Iran is providing U.S. enemies
in Iraq and Afghanistan with capabilities that are hurting and killing
U.S. troops." (Inside the Pentagon, June 21, 2007). But on the issue of
Iran, the Democrats are on board. There is a bipartisan consensus,
expressed by Senator Jo Lieberman:

     "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground
invasion of Iran,... [but a]  strike over the border into Iran, where
we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training
these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers" (AP, June 11,
2007)

In June, Secretary of Defense Gates appoints the Commander of
USSTRATCOM, General Cartwright to the position of Vice-Chairman of the
JCS. Together with the appointment of Admiral Mullen, who is slated to
take on his position of Chairman of JCS in October, these two new
appointments imply a significant overhaul in the power structure of the
JCS

In the meantime, USSTRATCOM is headed, pending Senate confirmation of a
new commander, on an interim basis, by Air Force Lt. Gen. C. Robert
Kehler

    2. CENTCOM

Admiral. William J. Fallon, was appointed Commander of U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM) in March by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Admiral Fallon is fully compliant with the Bush administration's war
plans in relation to Iran. He replaces Gen. John P. Abizaid, who was
pushed into retirement, following apparent disagreements with
Rumsfeld's successor, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. While Abizaid
recognized both the failures and the weaknesses of the US military in
Iraq, Admiral Fallon is closely aligned with Vice President Dick
Cheney. He is also firmly committed to the "Global War on
Terrorism" (GWOT). CENTCOM would coordinate an attack on Iran from the
Middle East war theater.

Moreover, the appointment of an Admiral is indicative of a shift in
emphasis of USCENTCOM's functions in the war theater. The "near term"
emphasis is Iran rather than Iraq, requiring the coordination of naval
and air force operations in the Persian Gulf.

    3. Pacific Command

Another major military appointment was implemented, which has a direct
bearing on war preparations in relation to Iran. Admiral Timothy J.
Keating Commander of US NORTHCOM was appointed in March, to head US
Pacific Command, which includes both the 5th and the 7th fleets. The 7th
Fleet Pacific Command is the largest U.S. combatant command. Keating,
who takes over from Admiral Fallon is also an unbending supporter of
the "war on terrorism". Pacific Command would be playing a key role in
the context of a military operation directed against
Iran.(http://www.pacom.mil/about/pacom.shtml)

Of significance, Admiral Keating was also involved in the 2003 attack on
Iraq as commander of US Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth
Fleet.

It should be understood that these new military appointments tend to
consolidate the power of Bush-Cheney in the military, overriding
potential dissent or opposition to the Iran war agenda from within the
upper echelons of the US military.

It is, however, unlikely that a major military operation would be
launched immediately following Mullen's instatement as Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and prior to the confirmation of a new USSTRATCOM
Commander by the US Senate.

USSTRATCOM's Central Role in Coordinating the Attacks

USSTRATCOM would have the responsibility for overseeing and coordinating
this military deployment as well as launching the military operation
directed against Iran. (For details, Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War
against Iran, Jan 2006 ).

In January 2005 a significant shift in USSTRATCOM's mandate was
implemented. USSTRATCOM was identified as "the lead Combatant Command
for integration and synchronization of DoD-wide efforts in combating
weapons of mass destruction."  To implement this mandate, a brand new
command unit entitled  Joint Functional Component Command Space and
Global Strike , or JFCCSGS was created.

Overseen by USSTRATCOM, JFCCSGS would be responsible for the launching
of military operations "using nuclear or conventional weapons" in
compliance with the Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine. Both
categories of weapons would be integrated into a "joint strike
operation" under unified Command and Control.

According to Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, writing in the
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists,

    "The Defense Department is upgrading its nuclear strike plans to
reflect new presidential guidance and a transition in war planning
from the top-heavy Single Integrated Operational Plan of the Cold War
to a family of smaller and more flexible strike plans designed to
defeat today's adversaries. The new central strategic war plan is
known as OPLAN (Operations Plan) 8044.... This revised, detailed plan
provides more flexible options to assure allies, and dissuade, deter,
and if necessary, defeat adversaries in a wider range of
contingencies....

    One member of the new family is CONPLAN 8022, a concept plan for the
quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare
capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent
targets" anywhere in the world. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
issued an Alert Order in early 2004 that directed the military to put
CONPLAN 8022 into effect. As a result, the Bush administration's
preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic
submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs)."

The operational implementation of the Global Strike would be under
CONCEPT PLAN (CONPLAN) 8022, which now consists of  "an actual plan
that the Navy and the Air Force translate into strike package for their
submarines and bombers,' (Japanese Economic Newswire, 30 December 2005,
For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Nuclear War against Iran,
op. cit.).

    CONPLAN 8022 is 'the overall umbrella plan for sort of the
pre-planned strategic scenarios involving nuclear weapons.'

    'It's specifically focused on these new types of threats -- Iran,
North Korea -- proliferators and potentially terrorists too,' he said.
'There's nothing that says that they can't use CONPLAN 8022 in limited
scenarios against Russian and Chinese targets.' (According to Hans
Kristensen, of the Nuclear Information Project, quoted in Japanese
Economic News Wire, op. cit.)

USSTRATCOM would play a central decision making and coordinating role in
the eventuality of a war on Iran. The administration has demanded
USSTRATCOM to elaborate centralized war plans directed against Iran.
CENTCOM would largely be involved in carrying out these war plans in the
Middle East war theater.

USSTRATCOM's is described "a global integrator charged with the missions
of full-spectrum global strike".

USSTRATCOM is in charge of the coordination of command structures under
global C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). "Day-to-day planning and execution
[by STRATCOM] for the primary mission areas is done by five Joint
Functional Component Commands or JFCCs and three other functional
components:"

If Iran Retaliates, the US Could Use Nuclear Weapons

US, NATO and Israeli military planners are fully aware that the aerial
"punitive bombings" could lead coalition forces into a ground war
scenario in which they may have to confront Iranian and Syrian forces
in the battlefield.

Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the form of
ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel as well as against US
military facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, which
would immediately lead us into a scenario of military escalation and
all out war.

Iranian troops could cross the Iran-Iraq border and confront coalition
forces inside Iraq. Israeli troops and/or Special Forces could enter
into Syria.

If Iran were to retaliate in a forceful way, which is contemplated by US
military planners, the US could then retaliate with tactical nuclear
weapons.

This scenario of using nuclear weapons against Iran has been in the
pipeline since 2004.  In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney ordered
USSTRATCOM to draft a "contingency plan", which "includes a large-scale
air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear
weapons." (Philip Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The
American Conservative, 2 August 2005).

In relation to current war plans, Cheney has confirmed his intention to
strike Iran with nuclear weapons.

    "The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting
tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear sites. His allies
dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air
strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are
training Shia militias.

    Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of
escalation predicted by Pentagon officials." (Sunday Telegraph, op
cit)

Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization

In May 2004, National Security Presidential Directive NSPD 35 entitled
Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.

The contents of this highly sensitive document remains a carefully
guarded State secret. There has been no mention of NSPD 35 by the media
nor even in Congressional debates.  While its contents remains
classified, the presumption is that NSPD 35 pertains to the deployment
of tactical nuclear weapons in the Middle East war theater in
compliance with CONPLAN 8022.

Tactical nuclear weapons directed against Iran have also been deployed
at military bases in several NATO non-nuclear states including Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey.

It should be understood that even without the use of nukes, the proposed
US aerial bombardments of Iran's nuclear facilities could result in a
nuclear Chernobyl type disaster on a significnatly larger scale.

World War III Scenario

While the war on Iran is acknowledged by the Western media, it is not
front page news.

The broad implications of an impending catastrophe are simply not
addressed.

Escalation could lead us into a World War III scenario.

Through media disinformation, the seriousness of a US-led war on Iran
allegedly in retaliation for Iran's defiance of the "international
community" is downplayed . The objective is to  galvanize Western public
opinion  in support of a US-led military operation, which would
inevitably lead  to escalation.

War propaganda consists  in "fabricating an enemy" while conveying the
illusion that the Western World is under attack by Islamic terrorists,
who are directly supported by the Tehran government.

    "Make the World safer", "prevent the proliferation of dirty nuclear
devices by terrorists", "implement punitive actions against Iran to
ensure the peace".  "Combat nuclear proliferation by rogue states"...

Supported by the Western media, a generalized atmosphere of racism and
xenophobia directed against Muslims has unfolded, particularly in
Western Europe, which provides a fake legitimacy to the US war agenda.
The latter is upheld as a "Just War". The "Just war" theory serves to
camouflage the nature of US war plans, while providing a human face to
the invaders.

What can be done?

The antiwar movement is in many regards divided and misinformed on the
nature of the US military agenda. In the US, United for Peace and
Justice tacitly supports US foreign policy. It fails to recognize the
existence of an Iraqi resistance movement. Moreover, these same antiwar
organizations, which are committed to World Peace tend to downplay the
implications of the proposed US bombing of Iran. More generally the
antiwar movement fails to address the existence of a broader Middle
East military agenda, a long-war. Its actions are piecemeal, focusing
on Afghanistan, Iraq  and Palestine without addressing the relationship
between these various war theaters.

To reverse the tide requires a massive campaign of networking and
outreach to inform people across the land, nationally and
internationally, in neighborhoods, workplaces, parishes, schools,
universities, municipalities, on the dangers of a US sponsored war,
which contemplates quite explicitly the use of thermonuclear weapons.
The message should be loud and clear: As confirmed by the IAEA report,
Iran is not the threat.

Debate and discussion must also take place within the Military and
Intelligence community, particularly with regard to the use of tactical
nuclear weapons, within the corridors of the US Congress, in
municipalities and at all levels of government.

Ultimately, the legitimacy of the political and military actors in high
office must be challenged.

The corporate media also bears a heavy responsibility for the cover-up
of US sponsored war crimes. It must also be forcefully challenged for
its biased coverage of the Middle East war.

For the past two years, Washington has been waging a "diplomatic arm
twisting" exercise with a view to enlisting countries into supporting
its military agenda. It is essential that at the diplomatic level,
countries in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America take a
firm stance against the US military agenda.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media
lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US
Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda
as well as its so-called "Homeland Security agenda" which has already
defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
history. The US  has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war",
which threatens the future of humanity.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of
political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe.
Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a
firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must
take a stance individually and collectively against war.

This article includes a few selected excerpts from my previous writings
on US war plans in relation to Iran.  For a review of US war plans in
relation to Iran, see Global Research's Iran dossier at
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=18


[Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller "
America's 'War on Terrorism'"  (Global Research, 2005). He is Professor
of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for
Research on Globalization.

Order Chossudovsky's book "America's 'War on Terrorism,'" here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

Note: Readers are welcome to cross-post this article with a view to
spreading the word and warning people of the dangers of a broader Middle
East war. Please indicate the source and copyright note.
media inquiries crgeditor at yahoo.com

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007