
Home Iran War On Terror Background	Iran News RSS

Iran attack?

Take Action Now

Background Archived Links Archived News

Iran - Background

1. US threatens to use nuclear weapons

Which country poses the greatest threat to world security?

The impossible ultimatum and how to prove a negative

2. Grave warnings of the consequences of attacking Iran

Devastating scenarios

3. Rhetoric hyped to mask proposed regime change:

raise fears of WMD, indignance at human rights issues, double standards

4. Real reasons for US to wish for regime change in Iran

What the mainstream media should be discussing ie “US interests”

Iranian oil bourse to trade in Euros, as Iraq did in 2000

5. Consequences of belligerent approach

i. More power to the hardliners in Iran

ii. Deliberate moving of goalposts as with Iraq, diplomatic solution not genuinely sought: panic encouraged by apparent lack of time for dialogue, increasing momentum towards an ultimatum to justify urgent action

iii. Reformers’ work thwarted

1. US threatens to use nuclear weapons

In October 2001, in the immediate wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld envisaged the use of the B61-11 in Afghanistan. The targets were Al Qaeda cave bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains.

Rumsfeld stated at the time that while the "conventional" bunker buster bombs "' are going to be able to do the job', ... he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons." (Quoted in the Houston Chronicle, 20 October 2001).

“ The Pentagon has blurred the distinction between conventional battlefield weapons and nuclear bombs. Already during the Clinton Administration, the Pentagon was calling for the use of the "nuclear" B61-11 bunker buster bomb, suggesting that because it was "underground", there was no toxic radioactive fallout which could affect civilians.

The Bush administration has gone one step further in defining the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which are now part of America's preemptive arsenal. Essentially they are described defensive weapons. Under the preemptive nuclear doctrine, they are specifically identified for use in conventional war theaters.

The Pentagon claims that the use of the B61-11 minimizes the risks of "collateral damage". According to US. military planners, "potential adversaries" are hiding their WMDs in "fortified bunkers" below more than 100 feet of concrete. Yet test results indicate that the low yield B61-11 has never penetrated more than 20 feet below the ground (See also The Independent. 23 October 2003) :

"The earth-penetrating capability of the B61-11 is fairly limited. ... Tests show it penetrates only 20 feet or so into dry earth when dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet. ... Any attempt to use it in an urban environment would result in massive civilian casualties. Even at the low end of its 0.3-300 kiloton yield range, the nuclear blast will simply blow out a huge crater of radioactive material, creating a lethal gamma-radiation field over a large area”” (Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons by Robert W. Nelson, Federation of American Scientists, 2001 ).

"The use of any nuclear weapon capable of destroying a buried target that is otherwise immune to conventional attack will necessarily produce enormous numbers of civilian casualties. No earth-burrowing missile can penetrate deep enough into the earth to contain an explosion with a nuclear yield [of a low yield B61-11] even as small as 1 percent of the 15 kiloton Hiroshima weapon. The explosion simply blows out a massive crater of radioactive dirt, which rains down on the local region with an especially intense and deadly fallout."(Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons, by Robert W. Nelson, op cit )

While the US Congress has blocked further research funding in fiscal 2005 on new more robust tactical nuclear weapons, this decision does not affect the existing arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11, developed during the Clinton administration. The B61-11 bunker busters are fully operational, The B61-11 has apparently been tested "resulting in its acceptance as a standard stockpile item". It has been cleared for battlefield use

Noam Chomsky warns about the use of nuclear weapons - " Under the current U.S. policies, a nuclear exchange is inevitable ," the 77-year-old MIT professor said in his presentation, "Imminent Crises: Paths Toward Solutions."

"New world relationships" - Noam Chomsky - 03/10/06 - The background to what the USA really feels threatened by

"America's Long War" - Simon Tisdall and Ewen MacAskill - US defence chiefs have unveiled their plan for battling global Islamist extremism. They envisage a conflict fought in dozens of countries and for decades to come.

Mikhail Gorbachev is alarmed at the US change to the agreement that nuclear weapons were to be used only as a deterrent never for attack. He claims the US is in need of perestroika - The Guardian article

"Petro-dollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse" - William R. Clark talks about the use of nuclear missiles against Iran - "with the shocking disclosure that in the event of another 9/11-type terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Vice President Dick Cheney's office wants the Pentagon to be prepared to launch a potential tactical nuclear attack on Iran – even if the Iranian government was not involved with any such terrorist attack against the U.S.A"

"Annexing Khuzestan; battle-plans for Iran" - Mike Whitney - “In fact, the Pentagon may want to demonstrate its eagerness to use nuclear weapons to deter future adversaries and to maintain current levels of troop deployments without a draft.”

"Logic out the window at the White House" - Gwynne Dyer - "The Cyprus Mail" - John Bolton “calmly proposing an illegal attack on a sovereign state, possibly involving nuclear weapons. “ experience tells us the Bush administration will still go ahead even though told it will spell disaster

Wayne Madsen on the detailed military plans for a US attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons

"U.S. May Arm Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike" - Tony Capaccio report from Bloomberg

"Hawks have warplanes ready if the nuclear diplomacy fails" - By Richard Beeston Diplomatic Editor, The Times - " the use of military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme is being actively considered"

details military scenarios

US general maps out strategic refit for Iraq, Middle East and Asia

· Number of troops 'may be contributing to instability'

· Public profile of ground forces to be lowered

By Richard Norton-Taylor - The Guardian

"Use of force debate persist on Iran" - by Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent, Reuters

"A senior Russian parliamentary official and leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky believes that a US attack on Iran is inevitable"
- “The war is inevitable because the Americans want this war,” “Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,” - Moscow News report

"Uncle Chutzpah and His Willing Executioners on the Dire Iran Threat:

With Twelve Principles of War Propaganda in Ongoing Service" - by Edward S. Herman - ZMag - How the mainstream media is preparing us for a war on Iran

"Iran: Where Do We Go From Here?" - Mike Whitney - On how Iran has not violated the NPT Treaty and how the UN should not be bullied into supporting the US “presidential statement”

“However the document could not confirm that Iran was not seeking nuclear weapons.” - The BBC report on the UN report on Iranian nuclear situation which has been forwarded to the security council.

2. Grave warnings of the consequences of attacking Iran

"'10,000 would die' in A-plant attack on Iran" - Thomas Harding

A major American attack on Iran's nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 eople and lead to war in the Middle East

"Iran: Consequences of a War" - Professor Paul Rogers

Briefing paper, from the Global Security Consultant at the Oxford Research Group - a comprehensive analysis of the likely nature of US or Israeli military action that would be intended to disable Iran's nuclear capabilities. It outlines both the immediate consequences in terms of loss of human life, facilities and infrastructure, and also the likely Iranian responses, which would be extensive

The report concludes: "A military response to the current crisis is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further. Alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."

"A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences" by Sammy Salama and Karen Ruster - Center for Nonproliferation Studies

"Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse" by William R. Clark - " it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq"

"WWIII or Bust: Implications of a US Attack on Iran" By Heather Wokusch

" Witnessing the Bush administration's drive for an attack on Iran is like being a passenger in a car with a raving drunk at the wheel. Reports of impending doom surfaced a year ago, but now it's official: under orders from Vice President Cheney's office, the Pentagon has developed "last resort" aerial-assault plans using long-distance B2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles with both conventional and nuclear weapons"

"Would Iranian Nukes Only Kill Jews?" by Jack Wheeler - The Jewish Journal of LA - "The consequences of a nuclear attack on Israel would include the devastation of Palestine and the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, the alternative could be for Israel to promote peace."

"Iran threatens to close Hormuz" - NewsInsight report

" Iranian president Mohammad Ahmadinejad is evaluating an all out military response, including closing the Strait of Hormuz, if Iran is attacked by US-led Western powers for its WMD programme."

3. Rhetoric hyped to mask proposed regime change

"Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse"
by William R. Clark - “ it appears increasingly likely the Bush administration may use the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for an intervention, similar to the fears invoked in the previous WMD campaign regarding Iraq”

"Bush plans huge propaganda campaign in Iran" - Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington

Congress asked for $75m to fund programme - Rice visits the Gulf states as nuclear crisis deepens

"The 48 Hour Media-blitz for War with Iran" - By Mike Whitney

The build-up and rhetoric to war with Iran matches that with Iraq in raising fears of the enemy wielding WMD. Many inspections allowed to fail and no evidence. Claims that it would be 10 years at least before Iran could produce a nuclear weapon are not printed in the US press.

The Iranian government is a "central banker" for global terrorism and working with Syria to destablise the Middle East, Condoleeza Rice the US Secretary of State has said. - Aljazeera

"US general says there is no proof Iran behind Iraq arms" - Reuters

"Asked whether the United States has proof that Iran's government was behind these developments, Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon briefing, "I do not, sir."

"Russia and China remain at odds with U.S., Britain and France over Iran statement" - Edith M. Lederer

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton contradicts the head of the IAEA as well as undermining him when he ignores his call for cool-headedness

"US Beefs Up Iran Dossier" - By Simon Tisdall - Mail&Guardian

"US fears about Iranian nukes are hardly the whole story. Washington is compiling a dossier of grievances against Tehran similar in scope and seriousness to the pre-war charge-sheet against Iraq"

"Iran: the next war - Bush and Blair are gearing up for it, and they are preparing us, too - just as they did before attacking Iraq. But where is the threat?" - John Pilger

"Rice: Iran is major challenge to peace" - Guardian Special Report

"The US may face "no greater" challenge from any country than Iran, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said...Ms Rice, who is pushing the UN security council to start taking action against Iran that could lead to sanctions, also accused Tehran of meddling in Iraq"

"US envoy hints at strike to stop Iran" - Julian Borger

"· Bolton says nuclear plant can be 'taken out'

· UN agency meets to send report to security council"

John Bolton - “The longer we wait to confront the threat Iran poses, the harder and more intractable it will become to solve ... we must be prepared to rely on comprehensive solutions and use all the tools at our disposal to stop the threat that the Iranian regime poses."

"Iran is only months from bomb technology, says Britain" - Simon Tisdall and Ian Traynor

"The west's confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year."

Former Foreign Secretary Lord Hurd has said Britain cannot "realistically" rule out using military force against Iran over its nuclear programme." - BBC report

"The US now claims Iran could already produce 10 nuclear weapons", when?

"Bush ready to initiate 'regime change' for the mullahs" - by Alec Russell

"After five years of indecision and internal disputes the Bush administration has started a new, more vigorous phase in trying to undermine the ruling mullahs of Iran"

4. Real reasons for US to wish for regime change in Iran

What the mainstream media is not discussing: On March 20 th the Iranian oil bourse was due to trade its oil in Euros, just as Iraq did in 2000.

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

By William R. Clark - Media Monitors

"Trading oil in euros – does it matter?" - Cóilín Nunan - Energy Bulletin -

"it has been suggested that real motivation for US antipathy towards the Iranian government has little to do with concerns that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons. Some commentators have instead suggested that Iran’s real Iranian threat to the US and its economy is that, in defiance of the US administration, it is attempting to establish an oil ‘bourse’ (exchange) in March of this year which would enable oil to be traded in euros"

"Global Economic Hegemony: A New Kind of Warfare?" - Kaleem Hussain

Information on Iranian bourse due to open March 20 th

"Uncle Chutzpah and His Willing Executioners on the Dire Iran Threat: With Twelve Principles of War Propaganda in Ongoing Service" - Edward S. Herman - ZNet

"UAE turns back on dollar in foreign reserves shake-up" - Ambrose Evans-Pritchard - The Daily Telegraph - " The United Arab Emirates is planning to switch 10pc of its foreign reserves from dollars to euros in the first sign of fall-out from Washington's snub to Dubai Ports World last week"

"Will Iran's 'petroeuro' threat lead to war?" - Jerome R. Corsi - WorldNetDaily - "Many administration critics argue today that the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003 was not to remove WMD from Iraq or to establish freedom but to preserve the dollar dominance of the world's oil market. These same critics argue today that the real reason for the ramp-up of concern over Iran has nothing to do with Iran's secret nuclear weapons program or with President Ahmadinejad's threats to destroy Israel but everything to do with oil."

"Iran nuclear file a non-NPT issue, says Veteran UK politician" - Islamic Republic News Agency - "The Iran issue has nothing to do with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and it is about US President George W Bush and towing away British Premier Tony Blair, said Tony Benn a former minister in the labour administration."

5. Consequences of belligerent approach

i. More power to the hardliners in Iran

Tension with west strengthens hard-liners

http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-irandemocracy/inside_3265.jsp

"Inside Iran" - Nasrin Alavi - Open Democracy - " The fanatics in charge in Tehran have increased their hardline rhetoric in response to domestic as well as international pressure. This is opportunity as well as danger for the west"

"Iran vs the United States - again" - Fred Halliday - "Washington's confrontational rhetoric and wishful thinking about "regime change" is fuelling the power of Tehran's own hardline rulers"

"Iran offers to suspend uranium enrichment" - George Jahn - ABC News International - "Iran is offering to suspend full-scale uranium enrichment for up to two years, a diplomat said Tuesday. The proposal reflected Tehran's attempts to escape U.N. Security Council action over the activity, which can be used to make nuclear arms."

"Think Beyond Impeachment, Says Former U.N. Weapons Inspector" - Nathan Diebenow - Lone Star Iconoclast - Scott Ritter warns:

“ A successful inspection regime would be the enemy of American policy. That is something that I as an inspector found since day one” and “that same pattern of deception that you saw in Iraq is taking place today when it comes to the issue of Iran.”

"Shock and Awe; the sequel" - Mike Whitney - " Bush would like to conceal his attack on Iran behind a mask of international legitimacy. But even without Security Council approval the plan will move forward. The current showdown has nothing to do with “noncompliance” or imaginary nuclear weapons programs. It has everything to do with consolidating the vast resources of the Caspian Basin under the Stars and Stripes and fending off future threats to America’s global domination"

"Iran was not referred to the Security Council for Noncompliance" - Mike Whitney

"Iran Allows Inspectors, Pushes Ahead" - UPI Wire - " As Iran allows nuclear inspectors more access, it is openly processing enriched uranium as a political show against U.S.-led demands for sanctions."

"Iran’s nuclear challenge" - Bahram Rajaee - "A solution to the dangerous crisis over Iran's nuclear programme requires understanding the Tehran regime's calculations in the context of its post-1979 foreign and defence policy"

"March madness" - Gordon Prather - WorldNetDaily - "Gholamali Haddadadel, "speaker" of Iran's Parliament – in Cuba last week –dismissed the possibility of a U.S. pre-emptive attack against Iran, finding it "impossible" to 'believe" that the U.S. would want "to repeat the experience of Iraq." "We hope the United States is not so stupid," he said"

"How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda" - Gareth Porter - IPS -

" The United States and Iran were on a course to work closely together on the war against al Qaeda and its Taliban sponsors in Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 -- until Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped in to scuttle that cooperation, according to officials who were involved at the time."

U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan James Dobbins reveals how Iran was co-operating to support the US against the Taliban and Al-Quaida at the time of the axis of evil speech, but the US refused to co-operate.

iii. Reformers’ work thwarted

"Activists in Iran say U.S. strategy hurts their work" - Karl Vick and David Finkel - Seattle Times - "Prominent activists inside Iran say President Bush's plan to spend tens of millions of dollars to promote democracy here is the kind of help they don't need."

Other Archived Links

- Tony Blair has said: "People are asking 'are we about to go and invade Iran?' It is important that fear is laid to rest...Nobody is talking about that, nobody is planning for it, nobody is wanting to do it."

But he added: "You don't ever take any option off the table." report

Blairs "warning" to Iran - report

- Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, writing on the contingency plans for a US led "large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons" - read the American Conservative article here

- "Why Iran will lead to World War 3" - Mike Whitney's article on the threat of a new global conflict (08/08/05)

- "Q&A: Iran's nuclear stand-off " - BBC, Aug 2005

- "Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran" by Michel Chossudovsky (May 2005)

- Scott Ritter claims U.S. are planning an attack on Iran - report (Feb 2005)

- Scott Ritter article - "Sleepwalking to disaster in Iran" (March 2005)

- Analysis of the rhetoric before the war in Iraq - and now before the "conflict" in Iran - "Attack On Iran Inevitable Or Inconceivable?" (May 2005)

- "Why An Attack On Iran Is Inevitable" by John Laughland (Jan 2005)

"The Coming Wars" - Seymour Hersh's article from The New Yorker magazine (Jan 2005)

"...a US attack could come (on Iran) with no warning at all."

Is Tony Blair and the Government on the on the brink of taking the UK into another disastrous and illegal conflict, by following the USA into war with Iran?

"Are we going to war with Iran?" by Dan Plesch

Audio files of Scott Ritter talking on War with Iraq & Iran