[NYTr] Chossudovsky: Bush's World War Three

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[You really need to see the accompanying photos at the original URL
to appreciate this article. Bush's expressions and body language are
extremely bizarre.]

sent by mart

Global Research (Canada) - Oct 17, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7116


Bush's World War Three

By Michel Chossudovsky

    " We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in
avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in
preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very
seriously...." (George W. Bush, 17 October 2007) 

[CAPTION: Grin and Laugh: "Here's his expression while saying the words
"World War Three" (Huffington Post, 17 October 2007)]

    "I believe that. I believe that [the revolt of passengers on the
hijacked flight 93 on September 11, 2001] was the first counter-attack
to World War III." (George W. Bush, May 6, 2006)

    "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran
is simply ridiculous... Having said that, all options are on the
table."  George W. Bush, February 2005)

We are not living a sound and rational World where far-reaching
decisions by the US President are based on an understanding of their
likely consequences. 

A World War III is no longer a hypothetical scenario. 

During the Cold War, the concept of "mutual assured destruction" (MAD)
was put forth. An understanding of the devastating consequences of
nuclear war largely contributed to avoiding the outbreak of war between
the US and the Soviet Union.

Today, in the post-Cold war era, no such understanding prevails. The
specter of a nuclear holocaust,  which haunted the world for half a
century has been relegated to the status of "collateral damage".

US foreign policy under the Neocons is based on a diabolical and
criminal agenda. The "war on  terrorism" is a lie; Iran does not
constitute a threat to global security as confirmed by a recent IAEA
report. Iran does not constitute a threat to Israel. 

The US president is a liar, who believes his own lies. 

While Iran's non existent nukes are said to constitute a lethal and
deadly threat, so-called tactical nuclear weapons "Made in America" are
described in Pentagon documents as "harmless to the surrounding
civilian population". 

In a bitter irony, those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons
believe their own propaganda. A preemptive nuclear attack on Iran is
upheld as a bona fide humanitarian undertaking which contributes to
global security.  

And now the US Head of State, who has a limited understanding of
geopolitics, let alone geography, is hinting that if Iran does not give
up its nonexistent nuclear weapons program,  we might be reluctantly
forced into in a World War III situation. Bush has insinuated that as
Commander in Chief, he could decide to launch a war on Iran, which
would result in World War III. 

"Dr. Strangelove rides again." In an utterly twisted logic, World War
III is presented by the US President as a means to preventing
collateral damage. 

The war would be triggered by Iran, who has refused to abide by the
"reasonable demands" of "the international community". 

Realities are twisted and turned upside down. Iran is being accused of
wanting to start World War III. 

Media Blackout

World public opinion has its eyes riveted on the cataclysm of "global
warming". World War III on the other hand is not front page news. We
are talking about the loss of tens of thousands of lives: the
consequences of the US military agenda which includes the preemptive
use of nuclear weapons in a very concrete way threatens the future of
humanity. 

At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an
advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the
coalition fully understand that such an action will result in a World
War III scenario. Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and
analyzed by the Pentagon. US sponsored war games have even foreseen the
possible intervention of Russia and China.

World War III has been on the lips of NeoCon architects of US foreign
policy from the outset of the Bush regime. It is contained in a
document published in September 2000 by the Project of the New American
Century (PNAC), 

 The PNAC's declared objectives imply a "long war", a global war
without borders::

        "defend the American homeland;

         fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater
wars;

         perform the "constabulary" duties associated with shaping the
security environment in critical regions;

         transform U.S. forces to exploit the "revolution in military
affairs;"

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had
commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the 2000 presidential
elections. The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest.

The pre-emptive nuclear doctrine contained in the Nuclear Posture
Review is supported by the Republican Party and Washington’s
conservative think-tanks

George W. Bush is an instrument of powerful economic interests. A
preemptive war on Iran has widespread support by the US Congress, it is
also supported by America's European partners and allies.  Leading
Republicans have expressed their support for a preemptive World War III
scenario. In a 2006 interview at the height of the Israeli bombing of
Lebanon (July 16, 2007), former Republican leader of the House Newt
Gingrich candidly acknowledged:

    "We’re in the early stages of what I would describe as the third
World War and, frankly, our bureaucracy’s not responding fast enough
and we don’t have the right attitude. And this is the 58th year of the
war to destroy Israel and, frankly, the Israelis have every right to
insist that every single missile leave south Lebanon, and the United
States ought to be helping the Lebanese government have the strength to
eliminate Hezbollah as a military force — not as a political force in
the parliament — but as a military force in south Lebanon.

The Bush Administration has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive"
nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear
weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the Cold War
era.

In a classified Pentagon document (Nuclear Posture Review) presented to
the US Senate in early 2002, the Bush Administration established
so-called "contingency plans" for an offensive "first strike use" of
nuclear weapons, not only against the "axis of evil" (Iraq, Iran,
Libya, Syria and North Korea), but also against Russia and China.

[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. ]

                           ***

Annex

Excerpts of President Bush's October 17th White House Press Conference
(emphasis added)

Q Mr. President, I'd like to follow on Mr. -- on President Putin's
visit to Tehran. It's not about the image of President Putin and
President Ahmadinejad, but about the words that Vladimir Putin said
there. He issued a stern warning against potential U.S. military action
-- U.S. military action against Tehran --

THE PRESIDENT: Did he say U.S.?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, he did?

Q He said -- well, at least the quote said that -- and he also said,
"He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb."
Were you disappointed with that message? And does that indicate
possibly that international pressure is not as great as you once
thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?

THE PRESIDENT: I -- as I said, I look forward to -- if those are, in
fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those, because
when I visited with him, he understands that it's in the world's
interest to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a
nuclear weapon. And that's why, on -- in the first round at the U.N.,
he joined us, and second round, we joined together to send a message. I
mean, if he wasn't concerned about it, Bret, then why did we have such
good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?

And so I will visit with him about it. I have not yet been briefed yet
by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin.

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it
clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe
they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a
nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them
from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear
weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to
destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in
avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in
preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear
weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.
And we'll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of
this threat. Plus we'll continue working the financial measures that
we're in the process of doing. In other words, I think -- the whole
strategy is, is that at some point in time, leaders or responsible
folks inside of Iran may get tired of isolation and say, this isn't
worth it. And to me, it's worth the effort to keep the pressure on this
government.

And secondly, it's important for the Iranian people to know we harbor
no resentment to them. We're disappointed in the Iranian government's
actions, as should they be. Inflation is way too high; isolation is
causing economic pain. This is a country that has got a much better
future, people have got a much better -- should have better hope inside
Iran than this current government is providing them.

So it's -- look, it's a complex issue, no question about it. But my
intent is to continue to rally the world to send a focused signal to
the Iranian government that we will continue to work to isolate you, in
the hopes that at some point in time, somebody else shows up and says
it's not worth the isolation.


[The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research
articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are
not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed.]

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2007